QFAC: Your Stance on the Republic Of China Taiwan

I was thinking of some issues that not all of the candidates have commented on earlier, and this is the only one I remember right now,
so this is the issue this thread is about.


What is your stance on the Republic of China, Taiwan?

That is do you support it as being separate from the Peoples Republic
of China, being unified, neutral or some other in between stance.

[edit on 4/10/2007 by iori_komei]

My response as a candidate.


I am a full supporter of Taiwan's Independence, and personally consider
it to be a sovereign nation in all respects accept for some official
formalities.

If PRChina was to attack ROC/Taiwan, for any reason I would defend
them, and give them the full support of the United States of America.

However I also believe in listening, and respecting what Taiwan wants,
that is not declaring that Taiwan is considered an independent sovereign
nation, unless the ROC/Taiwanese government requested it.

Posted by Error

Please remove this post.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

Taiwan is a traditional last bastion of Chinese civil wars. It first came under Chinese rule not as one with the government of the mainland, but because a defeated rebel army invaded it out of necessity for a place to fall back and continue their fight. The mainland government eventually won and annexed Taiwan formally. That was over 300 years ago.

Since that time, about 50 years of Japanese occupation aside, Taiwan has been part of China. China suffered a revolution after WWII. Neither side declared independence from the other- each side claimed sovereignty over China. The war was not prosecuted to its final end. It ended in a standoff between the PRC and ROC. It is, essentially, a civil war gone cold. Neither side has bothered to fight in so long that the sollution is evident- let Taiwan maintain autonomy as a part of China.


For the purposes of American foreign policy, Taiwan may be treated as an autonomous province of a unified China which is currently at peace. We should favor the continuation of that peace.

There is insufficient motive and justification for America to intervene and encourage a reignition of this civil war by Taiwan. We have no business encouraging the Taiwanese to declare independence or supporting them should they choose to do so.

If a government anywhere were to initiate a massive tyrannical crackdown on a part of its territory without cause, America would oppose that in proportion to the injustice and the harm to American interests being caused.

The same should be in practice in Taiwan. If China were to attack Taiwan without cause, I would defend Taiwan.


In short, I believe that the US should have a minimal agenda in the internal affairs of China. Within the bounds of reasonable, productive means, we will oppose disturbance and injustice there. If Taiwan starts a war, we'll stand aside and let China secure its own territorial integrity. If China starts a war, we will cause them to lose that war if we reasonably can. If China acts non-violently but unjustly towards Taiwan, we will respond with non-violent consequences such as sanctions. If Taiwan uses its autonomy to undermine China, we will not cooperate with Taiwanese policy and will cooperate with China in hopes of keeping China's response measured but effective.

posted by iori_komei

I was thinking of issues not all candidates have commented on earlier . . this is the one I remember . . this is the issue this thread is about. What is your stance on the - ROC - Republic of China, Taiwan? Do you support it as being 1) separate from the - PRC - Peoples Republic of China, 2) being unified, or 3) some other in between stance.

My response: I am fully support Taiwan's Independence and consider it to be a sovereign nation in all respects except for some official formalities.

If PRC attacked ROC for any reason I would defend them, and give them the full support of the United States of America. However I also believe in listening, and respecting what Taiwan wants . .

Taiwan was once called Formosa by the Portugese, “beautiful island.” Taiwan is an island some 75 miles off the east coast of China. It is located around 20 deg N which is similar to far South Florida. The island is fairly large, about 13,800 square miles. Japan had its eyes on Taiwan from 1592, but it was not until 1895 that Japan took over full control of the island. The Chinese government had, in 1874, denied sovereignly over the island when Japan made claims for 51 shipwrecked sailors from Okinawa who were beheaded by the inhabitants of the island. The Japanese retained control and exploited the agricultural bounties of the sub tropical island until 1945. On the surrender of Japan, the United States gave over control of the island to Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist Government. The Kuomintang. KMT.

In late 1949, Chiang’s KMT was defeated by Mao Zedong’s Communist Party. 1.3 million Chinese fled to Taiwan. The KMT kept Taiwan under Martial Law until 1987. In 2000, the first free election was held on Taiwan. According to Wikipedia, the electorate is about evenly divided between two factions, one, the unlikely KMT and others known as the “Pan-Blue” which looks forward to unification with the mainland, while the other which includes a lot of Hakka natives known as the “Pan-Green” which wants to remain an independent country. Probably giving foreign policy suzerainty to Beijing.

The population is given at 22.9 million in 2005. Native Hakka number about 15%, which includes 2% classified as aborigines. Han Chinese are the other 85%. About 20% of the Han are newly arrived since 1949, the others having migrated earlier over millennia. 93% are classified as Buddhists, 4% Christians and 3%, all others including the aborigines.

Two large islands of many smaller islands, Quemoy and Matsu, are manned by Taiwanese soldiers. In sight of the mainland, the islands have been a source of irritation to the PRC. On past occasions they exchanged artillery rounds. The US 7th Fleet guarantees the security of those islands.

In FDR’s 1941 State of the Union message, he announced the policy of the United States regarding the looming conflict would be this: That we should strive to assure every person to live under the Four Freedoms, 1) Free speech and expression, 2) unfettered freedom to worship, 3) freedom from basic want, and 4) freedom from fear. These national objectives became part of the UN Charter of 1946. I’m thinking especially of the Article 1 provisions for self determination. This should be read in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Conclusion. In 1949, when we helped our Chinese allies move to the island, we did not think they would be there long. We believed they could regroup, be refitted with equipment, and with our help, soon return to the mainland to defeat the Chinese Communist 8th Route Army as it was called. But times changed. After the 1950-1953 Korean War, Americans had enough of war. The Cold War with the USSR was up and running. The Arab-Israel clash got under way in 1948 and was back in 1956 at Suez.

We had just lost Czechoslovakia (1948) and Germany was now 2, East and West. France was fighting and losing a Dien Bern Phu in Indo China and would soon face a horrible war in Algeria. Italy changed governments 2 or 3 times a year and the Italian Communist party frequently was the largest bloc in Parliament. So, we basically settled for the status quo in Taiwan. Our plate was full.

Taiwan’s GDP per person is much higher than the PRCs. It goes without saying that Beijing would like to add the industrial and research might of Taiwan to China. OTOH, why would Taiwan which has worked hard to compete with South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and yes, China, only to see their gains lost to ideologues in Beijing?

Despite the shaky legal background, it is conditions in 2007 that should determine which way Taiwan goes and it should be Taiwan that makes the decision.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

posted by The Vagabond
(1) Taiwan is a traditional last bastion of Chinese civil wars. The mainland government eventually won and annexed Taiwan formally. That was over 300 years ago. Since that time, 50 years of Japanese occupation aside, Taiwan has been part of China. China suffered a revolution after WWII. The war was not prosecuted to its final end. It ended in a standoff between the PRC and ROC. It is essentially a civil war gone cold.

(2) For the purposes of American foreign policy, Taiwan may be treated as an autonomous province of a unified China which is currently at peace. We should favor the continuation of that peace. There is insufficient motive and justification for America to intervene and encourage a re-ignition of this civil war by Taiwan. We have no business encouraging the Taiwanese to declare independence or supporting them should they choose to do so. If China were to attack Taiwan without cause, I would defend Taiwan.

(3) In short, I believe that the US should have a minimal agenda in the internal affairs of China. If Taiwan starts a war, we'll stand aside and let China secure its own territorial integrity. If China starts a war, we will cause them to lose that war if we reasonably can. If China acts non-violently but unjustly towards Taiwan, we will respond with non-violent consequences such as sanctions. [Edited by Don W]

1) Well, Mr Vag, you know most monarchs resist break-away subjects. Despite the cold bitter winds, the barren landscape, England resisted Scotland’s efforts to be free. Likewise the 13 colonies. When South Carolina and 10 other states attempted to break away from the US, we said NO with a vengeance. Look what happened when Texas broke away from Mexico. Look how the English majority of Canada resist the French speaking Quebeckers from breaking away. And I won’t even begin to recite the old USSR.

2) Actually, I can see the US playing the Taiwan card in Beijing. I also how Beijing can “tickle” the US with both NK - their dependant neighbor - and Taiwan - our long time ally. Let’s face it. China is there, 0 miles to NK and 75 miles to Taiwan, and we are here. 7,000 miles from either. Great powers cannot stay out of the other’s business.

Plus the unfortunate cultural and language deficiencies of the United States do not add to our strength. Author Jared Diamond remarked a while back that he had been invited to Ulaan Baatar to speak, and in 45 minutes, they assembled an audience of about 300 Mongolians who spoke English. How long would it take in W-DC, to find 300 who speak Mongolian, he asked?

3) I like this. It seems the right way to go. But whether Dem or GOP in W-DC will see it that way remains a question.

As I have remarked in other posts, Americans did not vote for Dems in November because they are anti-war. They are anti-losing a war. When we are wining a war, we love it!

[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

Communication and mediation should be at the top of any agenda, and in any circumstance.

That being said, Taiwan is fully encouraged to represent the interests of its people. That's important. In turn any declaration of sovereignty will be completely supported by our freedom-loving nation. We will not tolerate acts of imperial aggression.

The current Administration's statement that the "USA does not support administrative steps that would appear to change Taiwan's status or move toward independence" is the height of cowardice, considering the hard lines we direct at developing regions of the world.

Our foreign policy is to be independent in order to be self-reliant, non-discriminating, and fair to all. It would be immoral not to recognize and support these virtues around the globe.

[edit on 12/4/07 by SteveR]

[edit on 12/4/07 by SteveR]

With all due respect for the noble intentions of those who believe that America should support Taiwanese independence, I believe that encouraging the reemergence of a civil war in a foreign nation based on economic and strategic interests in one of that country's provinces is textbook example of the kind of imperialist aggression that the United States must not tolerate.

Let's face it, Taiwan is not about America committing to military action if necessary to defend the principles of human rights and self-determination. If that was what we were interested in, we would be trying to effect regime change over the entire mainland.
America is willing to fight over Taiwan because we think we can get away with it and if we do we stand to gain economically and strategically, not because we are willing to stand against any foe under any circumstance in the name of justice.

I'm sure that SteveR and others who support Taiwanese independence legitimately want to see whats best for Taiwan. I do not believe the same is true for the establishment which originated the idea however. I believe that those who support Taiwanese independence have been mislead by nationalist and corporatist imperialism thinly veiled with the language of freedom.

There is no legitimate reason for America to try to direct the future of Taiwan in a manner that is distinct from our broader policy on dealings with China.

Our policy in China should be one of cooperative and negotiated influence, not one of attempted coercion or of intrigue.

In the future, it will be a necessity for China to create a more open society, because the increased affluence and influence which China will hold in the future will create demands from their citizens which will have to be met in order for their nation to have a stable future.

If they don't do this, not only will they pay, but we will suffer with them because of our entanglement with them and because of the position that China is in to make or break international efforts.

If the Chinese people have no hand in the government and thus will not consent to it, the Chinese government will lose its control over policy, and what will one day be the largest economy on Earth will be doing whatever it wants, not cooperating with the international community or even fully with its own government. Whenever such a disconnect between people and government has occured in the past, the result has been corporate support for attrocities. We cannot afford that kind of a loose cannon in our future.

We must prevent that by encouraging the slow and painstaking process of transition towards a freer, more open society in China, in which the Chinese people have enough control of their country that they will allow themselves to be governed, ensuring that the policies of that superpower are coherent and compatible with that nation's obligations under international law.

If we try to coerce them into respect for human rights, they will never really embrace it, or cooperation with us. On the other hand, if we entice them, they will cooperate, and we will have nothing to fear from China even as it continues to grow.

In relation to Taiwan, this means not pressing the agenda of Taiwanese independence, but pressing the agenda of helping China maintain its possession of Taiwan and avoid civil disturbances there through programs that benefit the people of Taiwan.

The interests of freedom are served all the same in this way. Instead of creating an independent Taiwanese government to give the Taiwanese what they deserve, we can help the rightful government of China and Taiwan provide it to them because it is in their interest and ours to do so.

Taiwan does not need independence to have freedom. America does not need to hurt China to help Taiwan or to help itself. China does not need to oppose freedom, or America. This can all be worked out without a war, so I dismiss the idea of fighting or in any way inviting such a war in the absence of Chinese aggression.

I fail to see the cowardice in that.

I'll share a little story with you- something I try to keep in mind as a big guy who has been in a lot of fights and been encouraged for it most of his life.
It doesn't take courage to fight. There was this guy I knew in highschool- a very small man, personally speaking- who got off on anything that elevated him at the expense of others. He loved to crack fat jokes at me, steal stuff from people near him in class when they weren't looking just to see them freak out looking for it, walk around with his little clique trying to start fights with loners, etc.
I caught him stealing money from our cadet program (like JROTC, but state funded) one day. I'll never forget the look on his face. He froze dead still and just looked at me, his eyes went wide, he shook a little bit and glanced over his shoulder like he wanted to run... and he came back with the biggest haymaker he could manage. He telegraphed it so badly that I was able to block it, and I didn't even hit him back, I just started walking in on him, and he backed up. I started cussing him out, and he ran away. He never cracked another joke at me. In fact during senior year he tried to be buddy buddy with me.

THAT is cowardice. When a man (or a country for that matter) is so afraid of others that they can never cooperate, can never benefit mutually, but must gain at the expense of others, and if caught in it would rather accept the risks of fighting than humble himself and be corrected, that's a coward like no other, straight from the pages of MacBeth.

Now to be able to be self-assured while working together with people who are your equals- who may even be able to surpass you in some ways- and be willing to help them advance together with you- that takes some intestinal fortitude.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I believe that encouraging the reemergence of a civil war in a foreign nation based on economic and strategic interests in one of that country's provinces is textbook example of the kind of imperialist aggression that the United States must not tolerate.

I wish to address your opening sentance there.

My policy is to encourage Taiwan to represent its interests, without fear of imperialist retribution. This is the right of Taiwan and all nations the world over. It is crucial to their development. It poses no economic or strategic gain for us, only a moral victory of the kind that we far too often dismiss. If we want humanity to succeed we must transcend acting on 'business sense' alone and start taking our valued principles into consideration.

Your comments could easily apply to France in 1776, yet I doubt you realize the irony here.

In no way did I "encourage a war". Mainland China's behavior and military action is their business, their responsibility. In no way does their hypothetical wanton use of force incriminate those who supported Taiwan.

Let's have some backbone.

Originally posted by SteveR
My policy is to encourage Taiwan to represent its interests,

Fancy that, mine too. It is in Taiwan's interest not to reignite the civil war between the ROC and PRC, but instead to achieve its political interests through the internal political processes of China. That is something that China, Taiwan, and America should be able to come to an agreement on.

It poses no economic or strategic gain for us

Of course not. Our government would never even dream of supporting Taiwan because it creates a friendly military force very near a power which we distrust, much less keeping Taiwan's half-trillion dollar foreign reserve out of the control of the Chinese government, or depriving China of the right to regulate business in one of its very lucrative provinces.

If we want humanity to succeed we must transcend acting on 'business sense' alone and start taking our valued principles into consideration.

I propose that we consider valuing the principles of international cooperation and peace then. Because the bottom line is that if we encourage Taiwan to declare independence and we insist on defending them against China, we are initiating a war with China instead of pursuing our interests and Taiwan's interests there peacefully.

Your comments could easily apply to France in 1776, yet I doubt you realize the irony here.

Are you suggesting that I am forced to equivocate on a matter of principle simply because it does not vindicate my country in all historical instances? I refuse to do so. It is a fact that several enemies of Britain undermined the possibility that America could have had liberty without a war by funding and encouraging militias. France committed a crime against its own citizens and against ours by actively seeking a war to undermine Britain rather than first attempting to peacefully serve the interests of all involved and saving war as a last resort.

Now let's see if you can stick to your guns when it isn't convenient: Your defense of interventionism can just as easily apply to Britain in 1861. Should Britain have helped the Confederate States of America?

In no way did I "encourage a war". Mainland China's behavior and military action is their business, their responsibility. In no way does their hypothetical wanton use of force incriminate those who supported Taiwan.

It is neither an unlikely hypothesis nor an assumption of "wanton use of force" to anticipate that China would oppose a foreign attempt to strip it of its own territory. What do you think America would do if China seeded a rebellion in Hawaii and then deployed forces to keep us from restoring control?

Let's have some backbone.

We already tried that; it got us into Iraq. Now let's have a sense of responsible and intelligent policy making.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It is in Taiwan's interest not to reignite the civil war between the ROC and PRC, but instead to achieve its political interests through the internal political processes of China.

Vagabond, you are a candidate for POTUS. You are not a representative for the ROC. It is my view that we will not claim to know better than Taiwan on Taiwanese issues. We will support their pursual of interests without question.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
depriving China of the right to regulate business in one of its very lucrative provinces.

I must fundamentally disagree with your perception of what is important.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
France committed a crime against its own citizens and against ours by actively seeking a war to undermine Britain

I don't suppose this view is popular in America? It's convenient though.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Your defense of interventionism can just as easily apply to Britain in 1861. Should Britain have helped the Confederate States of America?

It is not an action I would of agreed with, but it is entirely understandable considering Britain's close involvement with North America.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
What do you think America would do if China seeded a rebellion in Hawaii and then deployed forces to keep us from restoring control?

At this point, good on them!

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Backbone. We already tried that; it got us into Iraq. Now let's have a sense of responsible and intelligent policy making.

I completely fail to see how backbone got us into Iraq. This is again, something that I fundamentally disagree on. I appreciate your opinions on my policy, even though I expected a higher degree of respect between candidates. Let's just remember politics is highly subjective, there is no absolute right and wrong here.

Thanks.

Taiwan is a republic that wishes to remain so. The government of Red China is communist and they have imperialistic intentions. Not too long ago a general in China boasted that they have missiles that can reach every city in the U.S.

As to why the current American administration is backing down from openly supporting Taiwan's sovereignty, the reason is clear: they wish to avoid an armed conflict with Red China which, for years, has been undergoing a massive effort to upgrade their navy, air force, and army. They already have the largest standing army and the world's third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Oh yeah...they are gearing up for a war all right…that is obvious…and with North Korea as their ally.

The point should also be made that the U.S. military is spread very thin these days and cannot muster as formidable a force in the Pacific as they could, say, at the turn of the century.

Regarding the morality of supporting Taiwan's independence, that depends on if one wishes to live in a republic or a totalitarian regime that incarcerates, tortures, and kills the followers of peaceful religious movements - like the Buddhists in the past and currently the followers of Falun Gong.

China Military Guide

Taiwan Versus Normandy

[edit on 12-4-2007 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by SteveR
Vagabond, you are a candidate for POTUS. (snip) We will support their pursual of interests without question.

Of course, because everybody knows that the job of the President of the United States is to do whatever Taiwan wants, no matter how much damage it might do to our nation or the international community, right?

As president I will not blindly support Taiwan out of some misguided notion that this is what best serves the cause of freedom- a misguided notion that is being sold by cold-warriors who would love nothing more than an excuse to undermine China at every turn.

I am prepared to offer Taiwan two options:
#1. They accept our full support in achieving a compromise that is beneficial to all involved.
#2. Insist on taking an impatient, short-sighted path by demanding nothing but immediate independence, and recieve absolutely no support in that agenda from the United States.

I am willing to represent their interests seriously and achieve a good diplomatic resolution, but I am not willing to fight their civil war for them if they choose to start it.

I must fundamentally disagree with your perception of what is important.

I'm not talking about what is important. I'm talking about what the establishment in America incorrectly believes to be important, and what long motivated them to pursue unwise policies in Taiwan/China.

I don't suppose this view is popular in America? It's convenient though.

I'm not about being popular, I'm about doing what's right. I know this stuff and I'm willing to say it. I respect the will of the voters and as such I will not pretend to believe something I don't. If they want a president who loves and respects acts of war and international intrigue, they should vote for a Republican. If they want someone who is willing to get into the nuts and bolts of the problems we are facing instead of hiding behind romanticized history and emotionally appealing language, they should vote for me.

It is not an action I would of agreed with, but it is entirely understandable considering Britain's close involvement with North America.

It would have been perfectly understandable for Britain to involve itself in a foreign civil war, sacrificing the lives of many of its men and taking the lives of many Americans, and in so doing to preserve the institution of American slavery, an institution which ran counter to the principles of Great Britain, which had abolished the slave trade and ordered the Royal Navy to interdict it over 50 years earlier?
Thanks for clearing that up.

I completely fail to see how backbone got us into Iraq.

You've forgotten all the tough talk about standing up to the axis of evil? You've forgotten the dumbest and most macho thing EVER said by an American president (Bring em on)? That's what Bush has essentially been telling us all along- show some back bone, suck it up, be a man, its only a flesh wound, we can take 'em.

I appreciate your opinions on my policy, even though I expected a higher degree of respect between candidates.

Don't misunderstand me, it's not personal, and I am completely sincere in my belief that you think helping Taiwan is the only thing America can do that is in keeping with the principles of freedom. I think that belief is flawed, and I believe that the people who worked to popularize it initially had much less admirable motives. But do not beleive that I am picking on you if I hold your feet to the fire- there is a right side and a wrong side, and I press that passionately- but so help me god if I let it become personal rather than issue-centered, may I lose the election.

You, I respect and have no problem with. Certain planks of your platform, I have a real distaste for.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
the job of the President of the United States is to do whatever Taiwan wants, no matter how much damage it might do to our nation or the international community, right

You're twisting the words Vagabond. Just saying.

The United States is and should be a guiding light for democracy in the world (hint hint) and a champion of freedom. I would agree that these notions have been perversely warped in recent years, but forget them we will not. Any cost of freedom is affordable.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It would have been perfectly understandable for Britain to involve itself in a foreign civil war

In no way did the British really consider that land and its affairs "foreign". Not quite yet. They were obviously going to play a card, and right or wrong, it has understandable motives.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You've forgotten all the tough talk about standing up to the axis of evil?

Ahh, there is no backbone in picking unjust wars with third world foes.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I think that belief is flawed, and I believe that the people who worked to popularize it initially had much less admirable motives.

The alternative being, irrational and biased support for an imperial red state?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You, I respect and have no problem with. Certain planks of your platform, I have a real distaste for.

You are entirely supposing my policy with Taiwan will leave America a few thousand less young men. I would say that supposition is jumping the gun for sure.

Anyway I appreciate your thoughts

As much as I really hate having to admit this, not because I want to lie,
but, I have not read all the posts that have been made so far, but I do
have a quick thing to add, and I'm not sure it's been said, so please do
forgive me if it has been.

The ROC, while it did for along time claim it was the legitimate
government of all of mainland China, they stopped claiming that in the
late 80's-early 90's, and no longer claim that, but consider themselves
the legitimate government of Taiwan and some small coastal islands.

Originally posted by iori_komei
What is your stance on the Republic of China, Taiwan?

There's a large problem with this in my view.

Selling Taiwan weapons, does nothing to help keep China on side. Which is something the U.S.A. needs to do, it needs to help curb their sale of weapons World over (Iran, etc) but it also needs China to raise the value of its money and so on and so fourth. You then also have to factor in a lot of other things:

What percentage of Taiwan desire to become a part of China? So on and so fourth. In my view, it is time the U.S.A. backs away and lets these Nations sort out their own problems. We can't afford to keep policing the world and the first Priority of any President should be to his own people.