tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post113945343621363179..comments2023-10-22T18:25:39.688+08:00Comments on The View from Taiwan: China: Chen is a TroublemakerMichael Turtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1139495297317337642006-02-09T22:28:00.000+08:002006-02-09T22:28:00.000+08:00Yes. You are right about the condition of "threat ...<I>Yes. You are right about the condition of "threat of military force". It is clear now that the condition of these 5 no's was not adequate, considering the reality of the situation now.</I><BR/><BR/>Chen could very well argue that the Anti-Succession Law formally encodes intent to use force, and thus voids any promises he has made.<BR/><BR/>Not that it matters. As David has correctly pointed out, the whole thing was FUBAR when Chen decided to open his mouth without first consulting with US officials....<BR/><BR/>Michael<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1139479798308076032006-02-09T18:09:00.000+08:002006-02-09T18:09:00.000+08:00David is right, I think. However you slice it, Che...David is right, I think. However you slice it, Chen has to give top priority to repairing the breach with the US, fair or not. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that I am beginning to wonder if the US really wants to prepare the breach, or if they are setting up Chen to take the fall for the "rupture in Taiwan-US relations". This scenario would ensure the arrival of Ma in power in 2008, who would then "repair" the relations. Is it even possible to repair Taiwan-US relations?<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1139470683375015012006-02-09T15:38:00.000+08:002006-02-09T15:38:00.000+08:00stop_george: I've got no argument about the lack o...stop_george: I've got no argument about the lack of goodwill from China, or their attempts to sideline the DPP government - but it's beside the point. Chen made a promise, and that promise was contingent on 'no intent to use force'. Pandas, WTO, and pan-Blue visits clearly aren't covered.<BR/><BR/>If Chen wants to argue that China *does* intend to use force, and so his promise is void, then he should do so explicitly. But I suspect he'd be crucified by the majority of the Taiwanese public and the US government if he does so. He might have got away with doing so as retaliation for the anti-secession law, but not now.<BR/><BR/>Look on it from another perspective: Does abolishing the NUC have any effect on Taiwanese sovereignty or China-Taiwan relations? No. The NUC has no legal power, and will do nothing during Chen's reign. However, does voiding his '5 Noes' affect Taiwan-US relations? Absolutely.<BR/><BR/>Given that China-Taiwan (political) relations will go nowhere while CSB's in power, I believe he should focus on Taiwan-US relations. His '5 noes' are a promise *to the US*, not to China. Noone cares about headlines of "China: Chen is a troublemaker", but when we start seeing "US: Chen is a troublemaker" then we have a real problem.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13329715599154655327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1139464341624035412006-02-09T13:52:00.000+08:002006-02-09T13:52:00.000+08:00I think the "China intends to use force" so he's O...I think the "China intends to use force" so he's OK line is extremely dodgy: you can't just arbitrarily decide (without telling anyone) that your precondition is not valid. In particular, he got elected in 2004 on the back of "700 missiles pointed at us", and yet renewed his promise at the inauguration - had he already decided that the promise was void then? If so, why say it?<BR/><BR/>If you want to make the "it's void" argument, then he should have said so explicitly - e.g. after the anti-secession law was passed. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally - if you look at the "4 Noes, 1 without" promise, which of those actions has he (as president) actually got the power to do? Answer: Only disband the NUC. All the others require the KMTs cooperation, so are fairly empty (but reassuring) promises anyway.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13329715599154655327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1139459736999059742006-02-09T12:35:00.000+08:002006-02-09T12:35:00.000+08:00George, you're a trouble maker too. ;)George, you're a trouble maker too. ;)MJ Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16859263977094071677noreply@blogger.com