Bush Says No To Taiwan Independance
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Interesting to say the least</div> <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8129941%255E401,00.html' target='_blank'>Clickeh</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->GEORGE W. Bush yesterday bluntly warned Taiwan against taking unilateral steps towards independence from China, in a sign the US has hardened its policy towards the island democracy.
Flanked by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao after a meeting at the White House, Mr Bush spelled out his opposition to "any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo".
In a direct criticism of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, Mr Bush said: "The comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally that change the status quo, which we oppose."
The US President was responding to a question about whether Taiwan should scrap a referendum planned for March 20 on the issue of asking China to withdraw missiles aimed at the island.
His carefully worded answer suggests the US wants to end any ambiguity about its policy on Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province that must return to the mainland.
Mr Bush's remarks are in sharp contrast to his position when he first came to office. Early in his presidency he declared the US would "do whatever it takes" to protect Taiwan if China attacked.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why the change of policy? Could it be that the US is more interested in getting in China's good books?
Discuss.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->GEORGE W. Bush yesterday bluntly warned Taiwan against taking unilateral steps towards independence from China, in a sign the US has hardened its policy towards the island democracy.
Flanked by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao after a meeting at the White House, Mr Bush spelled out his opposition to "any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo".
In a direct criticism of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, Mr Bush said: "The comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally that change the status quo, which we oppose."
The US President was responding to a question about whether Taiwan should scrap a referendum planned for March 20 on the issue of asking China to withdraw missiles aimed at the island.
His carefully worded answer suggests the US wants to end any ambiguity about its policy on Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province that must return to the mainland.
Mr Bush's remarks are in sharp contrast to his position when he first came to office. Early in his presidency he declared the US would "do whatever it takes" to protect Taiwan if China attacked.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why the change of policy? Could it be that the US is more interested in getting in China's good books?
Discuss.
Comments
What Scotland and Ireland are to Great Britian is what Taiwan is to China.
Right now Bush is using the US' stance on Taiwan in political bargaining to persuade China to continue assisting with North Korea. While he did condemn the idea of an uprising caused by a unilateral declaration of independance, the door is still open for a multilateral decision among China and Taiwan.
The good of this is that China will not give up Taiwan to a rebellion no matter the cost, that cost being lives.
The bad is that China may not even consider talks allowing Taiwan to become an independant state.
It's just political pandering. We need China to not interfere or maybe even assist if something drastic needs to be done about North Korea.
Flanked by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao after a meeting at the White House, Mr Bush spelled out his opposition to "any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo".
In a direct criticism of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, Mr Bush said: "The comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally that change the status quo, which we oppose."
The US President was responding to a question about whether Taiwan should scrap a referendum planned for March 20 on the issue of asking China to withdraw missiles aimed at the island.
His carefully worded answer suggests the US wants to end any ambiguity about its policy on Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province that must return to the mainland.
Mr Bush's remarks are in sharp contrast to his position when he first came to office. Early in his presidency he declared the US would "do whatever it takes" to protect Taiwan if China attacked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... This quote seems to me to have a problem. How does this sharply contrast with his position that we will protect Taiwan if China attacks? He's not saying that we won't protect them if China attacks, he's just saying that we don't want them to do anything stupid that will get them killed. Right now, the "status quo" isn't so bad. China is threatening, but not attacking, and Taiwan is relatively independant and relatively safe. So, if the choice is between staying where things are now and attempting to become completely independant which will most likely trigger a major war, of course we want things to stay as they are. I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here, other than people trying to find ways to make it sound like Bush contradicted himself, even if he really didn't in this case... Of course we don't want war with China, we're kind of busy right now with the middle east/terrorism issue. That doesn't mean we won't do what we can to defend Taiwan against aggression if it comes to it. We'd just rather it not come to it, so we're trying to convince them not to provoke anything right now.
The keywords are unilaterally, right now, I think Bush is saying that a violent independence from China is a no-no. I think right now he just wants some compromises to be made, rather than a can of worms opening up.
Right now a civil war in China isn't perhaps the greatest idea, although I can sympathize with Taiwan. However, a foreign countries opinion of a civil war only goes about so far, the only real involvement would be arms sales, most likely. It's important to remember also that it's not necessarily that the central government is oppressing Taiwan, US had it's Civil War over more than just slavery, and I don't think it was a bad thing for the central government to not want a territory to gain independence.
SOUNDS LIKE FUN.
I'm right behind you guys, I'll be waiting in the bomb shelter...
We are way to over-extended to get into a potential conflict with china and taiwan right now.
Taiwan is reletively safe from conventional attack, but for now we dont' want any fighting sparked, becuase we can no longer support a two front major conflict.
Because I don't think the leaders of the PRC are going to back down, you have to pack that Island pretty tight to keep 1,3 billion Chinese with nuke arsenal back.
[QUOTE=Windelkron]interesting, because I know that a lot of Taiwanese americans (including my father) voted for bush (partly) because they thought he would be friendly to taiwan.[/QUOTE]
I hope he knows what to do in the next elections <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
What change in policy?
What everyone needs to remember here is that the US government... Whether it be a Republican or Democrat in office has a "One China" policy. Why? So that we don't start WWIII. If China ever decides to invade Taiwan the US has promised assistance... But we don't want that to happen. So......... The US doesn't politically acknowledge that Taiwan is an independent nation and China continues to declare Taiwan a renegade province but does not invade.
There is no change in policy. All Bush is saying is that he does not support any change in policy. It is Taiwan that is trying to change policy. Not Bush.
It's stupid for Taiwan to even try to change policy at this point in time anyways. If they are counting on US help should they declare independence and China invades, the US is in no position to enter the fight.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I said "Why the change in policy", as the article seemed to be indicating that Bush had changed his own stance.
I think the US is simply starting to realise the Taiwan situation for what it is; a potentially volitile dispute that could sour relations between the US and China plus drag the US into a regional conflict. China is well on it's way to becoming a major super-power, and as such the US must make sure that China and the US stay on good terms, otherwise it's an Asian Cold War and no-one wants that. Siding with China over the Taiwan issue is a good way to do that.
At the end of the day, I question whether the Chinese actually would invade. It would be a nasty fight, no question there, and China would probably win eventually, but the costs would be big. Judging by the China of today, the government seems more interested in making money than fighting the last remnants of the Nationalists.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I said "Why the change in policy", as the article seemed to be indicating that Bush had changed his own stance.
I think the US is simply starting to realise the Taiwan situation for what it is; a potentially volitile dispute that could sour relations between the US and China plus drag the US into a regional conflict. China is well on it's way to becoming a major super-power, and as such the US must make sure that China and the US stay on good terms, otherwise it's an Asian Cold War and no-one wants that. Siding with China over the Taiwan issue is a good way to do that.
At the end of the day, I question whether the Chinese actually would invade. It would be a nasty fight, no question there, and China would probably win eventually, but the costs would be big. Judging by the China of today, the government seems more interested in making money than fighting the last remnants of the Nationalists. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
do you ever read someone's posts completely? seriously...othell, hit that situation right on the head. let's spell it out for those that don't pay attention.
1: the US has NEVER outwardly supported Taiwan's full autonomy. it has simply held true to the Far East version of the Roosevelt Corrolary; simply, anyone invades Taiwan (namely Chinese communists), and the US will make them wish they hadn't. This has been foreign policy for over fifty years, and has NOT changed at any time. It is not a matter of "now realizing" that Taiwan is a hot issue w/ China--it's a matter of Taiwan trying to instigate new troubles in the region that the US is going to clamp a lid on.
2: Bush has done nothing more than say he would like to see the status quo maintained. He never once said that we wouldn't step in if China invades Taiwan--he blatantly called on Taiwan not to instigate a fight by trying to alter the status quo (which is NOT part of the status quo that has lasted over 50 years). He's telling them to appreciate what they have, and we'll keep parking carriers in the IO and in WestPac.
3: China does NOT have the material or doctrinal capabilities to successfully initiate let alone complete an amphibious invasion of Taiwan--once again, especially taking into account that carriers operating off of the Chinese coast, Japanese or Taiwanese coast, combined with 688i attack subs make the PLAN look like toy boats in a bath tub. Nor do they have the capacity to MAINTAIN an occupation of Taiwan.
4: China is no more going to **** off the US with military action than Taiwan will. The US has toppled two opposing regimes in the past two years--there's no indication they intend to stop. No, we couldn't win a successful land war in China, but the removal of the Chinese Politburo would easily leave a power-vacuum easily filled by the military. The fear of loss of personal power will no more let their ruling body precipitate war with the US than Canada would
5: Lastly, the US is currently militarily committed to two countries in and around the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Our ground forces have been active/deployed for the better part of 15-16 months in most cases. We're not willing to let Taiwan open up a THIRD hotzone, let alone far enough away to cause our SLOCs and logistical trains to be put at such a risk.
Overall, the US is like the parent stuck between a boy and his kid brother. The kid brother pipes up every now and then to let you know he's still there, but the parent won't let the older one kick the crap out of the younger.
Ahhh, I can finally add some input (I'm woefully underequipped to argue Taiwanese-Chinese history; I get past Chang Kai Shek then go nappy-time).
It's just about impossible for China to successfully invade Taiwan, even without the considerable weight of arms that the US 7th Fleet would bring to bear in the fight. Amphibious invasion on a small scale is the most complex, difficult, and dangerous operation in warfare. On a large scale, it becomes something that only a very experienced and well-equipped force could accomplish. All four US Marine Divisions, backed up by the Navy and reinforced eventually by the Army, would have a hell of a time invading Taiwan if we tried. China is nowhere near equipped for the task, and it would take decades of crash-building to make it possible if they started right now. Add in that Taiwan has a modern, US-doctrined armed forces and you'll see that China is a paper tiger, and it's threats to Taiwan are only realistic if you are discussing shipments of plastic toys, not landing craft.
Edit: Meh, Rat covered it. Oh well, consider it seconded. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
not too bad for a washed out NROTC cadet with a penchant for naval history, was it? while lacking the depth, I didn't think I'd have to touch on the exact intricacies of a Formosa landing. Granted the US even gave up in WWII when it was simply the IJA there, but ::shrug:: The main problem for China is not the men, it's the material, and the ability to have that material survive a jaunt across the Formosa Strait <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually, em, no. The differences are ideological and governmental, nothing about culture is involved. In fact, to the extent of either being the remotely "traditional" or "legitimate" government of China, the Kuomintang were ahead of the Communists by quite a few points here and there.
However, the cause of the recent, apparent "shifts" in policy are more to do with internal politics than foreign... In 2000, Chen Sui-ban won the election, shifting power away from the, by then, more conservative (shockingly enough) Nationalist party. He is very, very inflammatory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->america wants in with china so they have another supporter in the ever loomin korea conflict that might, and probably will take place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That, however, is most likely true too. After all, what caused the US to start funneling money into Taiwan again, after it abandoned its allies at the end of WWII? Korea. To fight a war in a given area, you best have regional allies (though Bush has shown a cavalier attitude with regards to that).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the end of the day, I question whether the Chinese actually would invade. It would be a nasty fight, no question there, and China would probably win eventually, but the costs would be big. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though this has already been addressed twice, I feel like chiming in. A few years ago, CNN did an analysis of the respective military capabilities, with a fairly remarkable discovery. Obviously China has the largest land army in the world... But that's irrelevant. Their naval and airborne capabilities, however, are apparently only about 200% greater in terms of raw numbers than Taiwan's (no idea why, those numbers were <i>low</i>). Taiwan also has a higher average technology level, as China still has many outdated aircraft and naval ships in their service, whereas a huge portion of China's airforce and navy are horrifically obsolete. In fact, Taiwan has one of the world's best antisubmarine capabilities, and a very strong air supremacy capability. A lot of it is US stuff (duh), including a horde authorized for sale by Bush at extremely cheap prices. Taiwan's military quality is also considered to be substantially higher, possibly due to their defensive orientation.
That and, like MonsE said, amphibious invasions are really really hard, all the harder when your navy and airforce are actually overall inferior, and when you're facing an anti-submarine force that is one of the best in the world. Short of missile bombardment or nuclear ordinance, neither of which China could use in the spirit of "intervention", it probably would not actually win. It's fairly even right now.
That's, of course, ignoring the fact that the US could smack any naval action by China silly in, eh, 10 seconds flat. Without blinking. With both arms tied behind its back.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
point of order.... ASW forces have almost nothing to do with the ability to repel amphib troops. Outside of the US Navy SEALs, no unit I've come across has the capability/technology of deploying from submarines for the purpose of military infiltration, let alone on a scale that would pose a major military threat. More important would be the utilization of SSMs, pre-emptive submarine strikes on the enemy's naval forces, surface action against the enemy fleet, attacks from carrier- and land-based aircraft, static defenses properly sited to prevent landings, and maritime countermeasures (naval mines, hedgehogs, and other "inconveniences").
ASW is generally handled by destroyers and frigates, which, albeit the higher-end destroyers the US and Taiwan deploy are valuable striking assets, more important would be CCGs (guided-missile cruisers), the Burke class DDGs (guided missile destroyers) and FFGs (guided-missile frigates) that hold the ability to fire either the Harpoon missile or Standard Missile (for anti-ship and anti-air purposes, respectively).
UK Royal Marines are capable of it, and have at least one modified diesel sub for the task. The North Koreans are as well, and have made quite a nasty habit of using subs for commando infiltration in SK over the decades. But the rest of what you say is quite right.
UK Royal Marines are capable of it, and have at least one modified diesel sub for the task. The North Koreans are as well, and have made quite a nasty habit of using subs for commando infiltration in SK over the decades. But the rest of what you say is quite right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
didn't know the limeys had that capability...and as far as the DPRK's infiltrating ROK, thought those were for espionage purposes, not military; although, from what I've read, learned, the deployment of said commandos into ROK is supposed to be the first precursor for an invasion south...or at least it was.
[edit]spelling[/edit]
SOUNDS LIKE FUN.
I'm right behind you guys, I'll be waiting in the bomb shelter... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
my arguments are basically summer up here but I'm all for freadom etc, but Taiwan and China seem content with the country not being independint in the books and on paper, but truly independent in the real world... They are both kicking back with a steady underground freedom that they allow to Taiwan. If china *really* wanted Taiwan, she would have it. China's standing army [just infantry] is somewhere around the population of the United States. They may be armed with just an ak-74 [I think it's 74, wth is that number if I'm wrong, it's the one china mass produces] and a sword/knife/sharpened object, but it doesn't matter, and combined with a semi decent airforce and ground tanks artilery and such. Oppinion <span style='color:green'>***You were warned***</span> I'm sure China could easily get Taiwan if they really wanted it that damn bad, Taiwan does have some arms from the US I belive [please correct me if I am wrong] with that. However when your messing with sheer numbers unless your going nuclear or something spifty or you are camped up more than a trio of AWP'ers in a far corner. Sooner or later [probably sooner] china would just "reasabsorb" Taiwan by force, and things would be said and done buecase it would be played politcally as a civil conflict by China, the catch is China and Taiwan are okay with each other as is, so it's currently all good, Bush doesn't want Taiwan to really anger china by seperating, esp with North Korea probably slipping under the spotlight.
does this post even make sense?
yeah, it does seem a bit rambly, but I'm pretty sure it has a point
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I was sort of hinting at was the use of nuclear weapons. China has stated, and indeed I believe it's even in their constitution, that they won't use nuclear weapons first against an external enemy. The problem with Taiwan though is that the Chinese government considers it an internal affair, and as such the use of nuclear weapons is resonable, at least from their point of view. I believe that an invasion of Taiwan could work if the Chinese used nuclear weapons, but of course that would open a whole new kettle of seafood.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it's threats to Taiwan are only realistic if you are discussing shipments of plastic toys, not landing craft.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that's really where I think any potential Chinese control of Taiwan will eventually come from: economics. Especially if China starts to push into the areas where Taiwan is strongest economically.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it has simply held true to the Far East version of the Roosevelt Corrolary; simply, anyone invades Taiwan (namely Chinese communists), and the US will make them wish they hadn't. This has been foreign policy for over fifty years, and has NOT changed at any time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It hasn't ever been put to the test though. Oh we've sat warships there and rattled sabers but it's never come to push and shove. I think that whilst the US may have, back in the 60's or 70's, overtly hinted that they might defend Taiwan if invaded, and actually intend to follow through on that, the situation today is very differant. Bush's stance on this issue says to me that the US doesn't want to get dragged into an Eastern conflict, and that if China did attack, the US would simply sit on the sidelines and sell some equipment to Taiwan at low prices. Why go to war with China over an island? The costs would be astronomical and raise the dreadful prospect of nuclear war.
Times have changed. My interpretation of what Bush has said seems to indicate to me that US policy has changed accordingly. Now you may see it differantly, and by all means that is your opinion in the same way that this is mine. The only way we could see who is right would be if China actually invaded, but I think we both know that's a very unlikely scenario.
Hardly. Just look at France! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->