Pages

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Appeasement of China Reaches Unprecedented Heights as Bush Capitulates on Arms

Had a lot of trouble titling this one.... Wendell Minnick reports from Taipei for Defense News that the Bush Administration has frozen arms sales to Taiwan.

As China and Taiwan prepare for their first official talks in more than a decade, sources in both Taipei and Washington say the U.S. State Department has decided to freeze all congressional notifications for $12 billion worth of arms sales to Taiwan.

Sources are mixed on whether the freeze will extend through the remainder of the Bush administration or only until after the August Beijing Olympics. Fears in Taipei are the freeze could become permanent with a new U.S. president in January.

The freeze is part of an effort not to derail Beijing-Taipei negotiations, scheduled to begin June 11, or disturb plans by U.S. President George W. Bush to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

The freeze covers about $12 billion worth of weapon sales now being processed under the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and items still awaiting approval, including 30 Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, 60 Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, eight diesel electric submarines, four Raytheon Patriot PAC-3 air defense missile batteries and 66 Lockheed Martin F-16C/D Block 50/52 fighters. The freeze does not include 12 Lockheed Martin P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, which have already been approved.

Sources are saying the State Department, along with heavy lobbying by officials assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, has been pushing hard to freeze arms sales to Taiwan to placate China. The freeze comes at a bad time for the U.S. defense industry, with expected cuts in defense spending and recent problems in the U.S. economy.

Beijing also has been successful at curtailing U.S. defense company activities in Taiwan. Boeing closed its Taipei office two years ago after threats that Beijing would curtail future sales of commercial aircraft.

There's really nothing to say. Heritage analyst John Tkacik, quoted in the article further down, notes:

"Here, the word is the White House won't move forward unless Ma asks, and Ma isn't asking," Tkacik said. "KMT people blame the delay on the U.S., and the U.S. smiles its Cheshire-Cat smile and says, 'Taiwan hasn't asked.' It seems there's a decision in Washington to shove Taipei into Beijing's warm embrace, and Taipei's leadership is too divided on the issue to make a decision."

Mark Stokes also notes that the Administration's move is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Taiwan Relations Act:

Mark Stokes, former country director for China and Taiwan in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1997-2004, and described by many in the defense community as the "staff coordinator" of the 2001 decision to offer Taiwan submarines, PAC-3s and P-3 Orions by the Bush administration, said the freeze violates the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).

"I would argue that the holding of these notifications, and refusal to accept and act upon the LOR for price and availability constitutes a freeze on arms sales to Taiwan. Nothing more and nothing less," he said. "This assertion is based upon more than a decade of direct and intimate involvement in the process. It also violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Taiwan Relations Act, a legal document that seems to be getting less and less attention these days."

It is obvious that the Bush Administration has quietly frozen arms to Taiwan for several years now, making hollow the claims that Taiwan doesn't care about its own defense -- with $12 billion in orders awaiting US fulfillment. $12 billion for US workers. $12 billion to keep our defense companies in business and lower our own prices (remember, when we produce more weapons, their prices falls). The international ramifications are vast -- how will India and Japan respond when they see the capitulationist positions of the State Department and the Bush Administration? How will this affect the current European embargo of arms to China?

There is really nothing more to say about this gross betrayal of a longtime ally to curry favor with China, done so that the President can attend the Olympics. Just another example of how China is adept at obtaining permanent results from the US in exchange for temporary favors from China.

Time for Congress to step in and force the sale.

39 comments:

  1. .
    .
    .

    Time for Congress to step in and force the sale.


    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

    That's a knee-slapper, Michael!!

    Kucinich spent 4 hours listing 35 solid articles of impeachment today against the worst president and war criminal in U.S. history which is quickly being met with thunderous silence.

    TRA? Congress can't even uphold the American constitution.
    .
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Time for Congress to step in and force the sale."

    Fat chance!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael Turton approvingly using Heritage Foundation quotes! Are you with them on Taiwan issues only or for the whole program? :)

    Plus the article has that shot about the next president (probably not a Republican) freezing sales permanently. Ouch!

    You know, I don't follow Taiwanese politics much, but I recall a certain party that obstructed arms sales for years and years - and now they're saying its the US side.

    Well, maybe it is. Maybe its a little signal to the KMT not to be such bitches.

    In any case, if Taiwan is negotiating with China for reunification, why would we want to rock any boats? Why would we want to derail peaceful reunification with any arm sales? The KMT got fully elected on this platform of dealing with China. Let them see it through.

    If its about the Olympics only, I don't think waiting until after August is going to weaken Taiwan's defenses any more than they already were previously by legislative yuan foot-dragging.

    ReplyDelete
  4. '"Supposedly, according to scuttlebutt here, [a U.S. State Department official] asked Ma at the inauguration if he was still interested in F-16s, subs, etc., and Ma insisted that he was, but it was not the right time to ask for them with all the cross-Strait talks going on," said John Tkacik, senior fellow, Heritage Foundation, and a former U.S. State Department official with service in China.'

    You forgot this quote from the same Heritage guy which seems to suggest it might indeed by the Taiwan side which wants to wait.

    Although upon reflection, the idea that State Dep't. Pandahuggers are behind it make sense too.

    I am not sure about the fear that any new weapons will simply fall into the hands of China once Taiwan re-unifies as that is more of a technical question. I'd be interested to know if that is a real issue or not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frustrating. Disgusting, in fact. I really am at a loss for words. It's one thing to see the Chen era KMT prioritizing political self-interest over national security (that I expected), but quite another to see this kind of duplicity from our own side.

    China-appeasement seems to be the fashionable stance of the day for virtually everybody.

    By the way, here's an op-ed that has a similarly nauseating, anti-Taiwan effect (I would send it to you via email, but somehow all my emails to your address bounce back):

    http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?mode=getarticle&file=eo20080606gc.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Time for Congress to step in and force the sale.

    How?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anybody still think Taiwan can count on US support in a military showdown with the PRC?Anybody still think Bush cares about promoting democracy?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Out of curiosity, does that mean that all arms deals are off the table, or does it mean that only the special ones are? In other words, would this make Ma unable to raise defence spending to 3 percent, or would it mean that Taiwan can't purchase any goodies? If it is the former, than it truly is a stupid thing by the Bush Admin. and the State Department, but I would not be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Red A, the freeze is on weapons requests that date back to 2006. In fact arguably it goes back to 2002, when the US set up unreasonable conditions that made it easy for the KMT to raise objections.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thomas, it is 8 separate requests for weapons dating back years. the freeze has been ongoing. it is now public.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Minerva, I'm

    turton.michael AT gmail.com

    If you are sending to Yahoo, it died a while back.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very disturbing news. Although true Republican form would be to wait for after the Olympics but before the American election to approve weappon sales.

    It is also important to watch carefully what Taiwan does. I think the Ma administration is already showing plenty of signs that the arms sales will be permanently 'undiplomatic'.

    Has anyone been paying attention to Korea? A conservative president elected by a record landslide to fix the economy...six months later the streets of Seoul are filled with protestors...

    How come South Korea isn't a model anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was told that Bush had no Asia policy, so it's entirely believable that he just wants to be sure he gets to go to the Olympics. I mean, he's practically persona non grata everywhere else.

    As for Congress, I understand that Taiwan is #99 on a list of 100 things the US Congress cares about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This youtube has almost 34 million views. The lesson is stand together, fight for what is important and never give up. ~ Ok, maybe a cheesy analogy regarding Taiwan's position, but its worth a look.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You're sounding more and more like a conservative. You're bashing the State Department, putting substance (arms for defense) ahead of symbolism (a trip to Olympics) and even complaining about appeasement of foreign fascists states while betraying democratic friends. Perhaps we'll even be hearing you call for free-trade agreements for democratic allies like Taiwan.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anybody still think Taiwan can count on US support in a military showdown with the PRC?Anybody still think Bush cares about promoting democracy?

    I hope this is a joke. You don't actually believe Bush truly believing in promoting democracy right...(my formal spoke person is going to testify against me in front of congress; let me invoke executive privilege to stop it).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Red A, the freeze is on weapons requests that date back to 2006. In fact arguably it goes back to 2002

    I'd have to disagree there. In 2007 there were the following congressional noficiations:

    02/28 (218) AMRAAMs and (235) Maverick air-to-ground missiles

    08/08 (60) AGM-84L Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles

    09/12 (144) SM-2 Block IIIA Standard air-defense missiles

    09/12 (12) P-3C maritime patrol/ASW aircraft

    11/09 Patriot 2 upgrade

    I would agree that a real freeze would be terrible for Taiwan, but I don't think that its security will be affected by a few months' delay with some of the current requests. We will need to see how events develop.

    I must say that I do not believe Obama will freeze weapon exports to Taiwan - McCain certainly won't.

    ReplyDelete
  18. maybe the US doesn't want to sell weapons to Taiwan because Ma is acting like China's bitch and giving them everything they want, and the US army doesn't want US technology to fall into China's hands as another one of those under-the-table gifts/compromises that Ma is so freely giving out

    ReplyDelete
  19. You want a Congress, a Democratic Congress to go against the PRC when half of them are feeding on Chinese lobbying largess?

    ReplyDelete
  20. StopMa, Kucinich?!? ROTFLMAO! That's one hell of a verminous politician you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  21. .
    .
    .
    FormosaSavage,

    Kucinich one of the only Democratic congressmen that has got the balls to do what is NEEDED and REQUIRED to be done.

    It was truly an amazing thing to see yesterday!
    .
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  22. .
    .
    .
    And those who missed the coverage of the presentation of the 35 articles of impeachment, HERE is the link.

    Sorry to be off topic, but I like praising honourable Americans politicians when I have the chance. It's such a rare opportunity these days.
    .
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dennis Kucinich verminious??

    Dennis Kucinich is a True American Patriot and one of the few elected officials in Congress fulflling his duty to the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I guess some in the DoD are afraid of the pending Chinese mainland-Taiwan reunion.

    These so called sales were always overpriced, which is the legislative Yuan in Taipei never approved them.

    Much ado about nothing - most of the freeze are things that Taiwan don't want, the F-16 package is the only thing that Ma wants.

    George Bush should be impeached and jailed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The problem with chickenhawks is, they always expect other people to foot the bill.

    The last time the A-word was used, we ended up with a million dead Iraqis and a few thousand dead GIs. The guys that made the sales? They merely shrugged and walked away.

    Now you guys want to peddle the same crap here? Excuse me, may I point out that you are not dealing with some tinpot despot here, but the biggest customer of your Treasury bills.

    We Taiwanese are the ones with our lives on the line. It seems only fair that you gringos put at least your own way of life on the table as well.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't mix up lame duck Bush with his State Dept.

    The State Dept. calls the shots on who gets guns from the USA.

    If you think Bush is on the same page with his State Dept. think again. Remember way back when he was first elected and he stood up for Taiwan only to be 're educated' by his State Dept.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon -- Bush made that comment about defending Taiwan because he was angry at China, not because he had naive ideas that the State Department later dissuaded him of.

    I'm afraid we're screwed here.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  28. I do wonder what the attitude of the next American president will be towards arms sales. For all of the lovey dovey talk about Obama here, I don't see him as the type to want to "provoke" China by selling arms to Taiwan. He can't even convincingly defend himself from criticism let alone defend an island across the ocean. McCain would undoubtedly be more willing. His Cold War mentality might actually be a boon for the island.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ...but the biggest customer of your Treasury bills.

    Wrong. see:(http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt) Taiwan is 13th. It's all part of WTO trade-offs and keeping the dollar based fiat currency in play.

    We Taiwanese are the ones with our lives on the line. It seems only fair that you gringos put at least your own way of life on the table as well.

    Don't be a racist jerk. Many of the long time expats in Taiwan have as much at stake as you do.

    Re: state dept, they've had their hands full just keeping the Cheney faction away from nuking Iran. BTW, from what I've read, there has already been a shift in the Principal's Committee (Gates, Rice, NSC Hadley, JCS Mullen, intel czar McConnell, etc.) which is why all arms deals are off until after the elections. (I commented on this a bit in this previous thread)

    Taiwan's mistake all along is that they haven't had one voice in the world to get people's attention. They should have created a powerful ATPAC (or AROCPAC) to position themselves better against the China lobby, but they fu$ked up due to selfish, petty infighting in the LY.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Time for Congress to step in and force the sale."

    Most amusing. The U.S. has repudiated the support of democracy and freedom. The Democrats are openly (black) nationalist socialists. Kucinich whipped up phony crimes to try the current president for supporting foreign democracies. The EU governors continue to vote themselves all power. The US supports them.

    If the US won't support freedom in the EU and in Iraq, where we have armies and influence, whence Taiwan?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't get why people think that buying treasury bills means anything. Buying treasury bills means that you become a stakeholder in the well-being of the US.

    If you tried to dump them or refused to buy them, there is a huge market for them (even with the greatly weakened dollar), and you'd be taking huge losses if the prices did drop dramatically on your sale.

    The US needs to defend Taiwan because Taiwan is a goddamn democracy that has liberal ideals and a significant economic power. The US has said a lot of shit these past 60 years (even if they didn't always mean it), and I don't see how a weak Taiwan, an authoritarian Taiwan, or a Taiwan that is a part of an authoritarian China is good for the US, Taiwan, or the world.

    There aren't many countries in Asia that are very open to foreign cultures and peoples and liberal democracies. Countries like Japan and South Korea are completely homogeneous and are interested in democracy mostly because they think it makes them strong (well Japan was forced to accept it, but I think they keep it around partly because of the miracle economic growth they experienced). Multicultural havens like Hong Kong and Singapore are authoritarian and are mere city-states.

    The unique position of Taiwan as an example of success of democracy in a situation where you have at least four different major ethnic groups that didn't much like each other is not something the US or the world can afford to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Most amusing. The U.S. has repudiated the support of democracy and freedom. The Democrats are openly (black) nationalist socialists. Kucinich whipped up phony crimes to try the current president for supporting foreign democracies. The EU governors continue to vote themselves all power. The US supports them.

    If the US won't support freedom in the EU and in Iraq, where we have armies and influence, whence Taiwan?


    Man, I sure hope you are the Anon that my posts annoyed. You truly deserve it. You do know that the single most important principle of democracy is "everyone is treated equal free from discrimination." You are not promoting Democracy, you are promoting Fascism. Yes, hopefully we will have a black President next year!

    ReplyDelete
  33. The unique position of Taiwan as an example of success of democracy in a situation where you have at least four different major ethnic groups that didn't much like each other is not something the US or the world can afford to lose.

    The Chinese Communist Party often justifies it's authoritarian rule as being necessary to prevent "chaos" amongst the disparate ethnic groups in the PRC, and the key to China's rise.

    The whole idea of a democratic, multicultural, multiethnic state run by an ethnic Chinese majority that rejects the "honor" of being part of a glorious Greater China, or the homogeneity of what is sometimes touted as being "true Chinese culture" runs counter to that doctrine. It's not surprising then, that the PRC (and the conservative wing of the KMT) regard the success of liberal democracy in Taiwan as a threat - it shows that an alternative exists.

    It is rather sad then, to see some in the West buy into the whole "chaos" argument. Oftentimes it smacks of "all y'all look alike".

    ReplyDelete
  34. My dear Arty (*pats Arty on head*),

    The kind of person that would support Obama for the multiculturalism that his heritage so starkly represents is the same kind of person that would detest the monoculturalism, racism, and cultural hegemony that Chinese nationalism, both in Taiwan and China represents. Taiwanese identity isn't some kind of Taiwanese version of Chinese nationalism--it is a cultural that is very open, curious, and accepting of other cultures. It's an identity that has a very complicated past, acknowledges that, and even linguistically isn't very well-defined. The DPP has a lot in common with the Democrats in terms of values, and Taiwan as a whole has a lot more in common with the US in terms of values than it does with China. This isn't a Chinese-ness or a East-West thing. It's simply liberal democratic multicultural values versus authoritarian, nationalist ones. The fit with Obama is very easy to see.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The kind of person that would support Obama for the multiculturalism that his heritage so starkly represents is the same kind of person that would detest the monoculturalism, racism, and cultural hegemony that Chinese nationalism, both in Taiwan and China represents.

    I support Obama not because of multiculturalism. Obama is probably smarter than both Bush and McCain combine and best fit for the seat of the President of US (Richardson is actually better but he doesn't have the vote). Only a racist (including the one within the democratic party) will think that's the reason. This primary really opened my eye on how racist my party is (that's Democrat fyi). Btw, I have donate a bit of money to Obama, haven't you? Also, I find the new KMT is more like the Democrat than DPP because majority of the DPP supporters (including Taiwanese-Americans) are in the Republican party as far as I know.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Arty, you are talking out of your ass. Do you notice that all the pro-DPP, pro-Taiwan, pro-independence "foreigners" (Michael has made Taiwan his home, and his whole family is Taiwanese so I mean, I wouldn't exactly call him foreign), are also all liberals and vehemently anti-Bush?

    The exact opposite is true. Deep conservatives in the US, those that are strongly anti-communist, love the idea of a "Free China" or "a democratic example to the Chinese world" and "last bastion of traditional Chinese culture" or "Taiwan preserves Chinese culture better than China" propaganda lines that Chiang Kaishek and the KMT used so effectively. They just eat that stuff right up; they need the symmetry or counterfoil to the authoritarian "communists" and the KMT gives them just that.

    Also, American conservatives are, even today, irrationally anti-Japanese, though you'd be hard-pressed to find anti-German conservatives for example. They have way, way much more in common with the KMT. The DPP of course is known for its pro-Japan leanings.

    The DPP is very pro-diversity, providing much greater institutional support for the development and survival of Hakka and Aborginal cultures. The DPP outright has a political platform of "priority for marginalized people", which even the Democrats can't outright pull off in the US (though the DPP's actual execution is questionable).

    I could go on and on... the similarities between the DPP and the Democrats are quite large.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Arty, you are talking out of your ass. Do you notice that all the pro-DPP, pro-Taiwan, pro-independence "foreigners" (Michael has made Taiwan his home, and his whole family is Taiwanese so I mean, I wouldn't exactly call him foreign), are also all liberals and vehemently anti-Bush?

    That's foreigners living in Taiwan (some of them for the wrong reasons), and today most Republicans hated Bush but still voted for him 4 and 8 years ago. Taiwanese pro-greens are usually Republicans (according to them is because of the Republican conservative SOCIAL values!?). You think I am pro-blue yet I am a liberal democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Arty, you are just one of many waisheng that are attracted to liberal democratic values when it comes to the West, but don't and won't accept them when it comes to Taiwan. I've met a lot of people like you. How you maintain the internal contradiction is beyond me.

    Stop using the "racism" argument. Only min-nan vote rather evenly between the two parties. Hakka, Aboriginal, and waisheng almost all completely vote for the KMT, and historically it hasn't changed, with Hakka being the best of the worst (70% this past election).

    ReplyDelete
  39. Stop using the "racism" argument. Only min-nan vote rather evenly between the two parties. Hakka, Aboriginal, and waisheng almost all completely vote for the KMT, and historically it hasn't changed, with Hakka being the best of the worst (70% this past election).

    Except I try not to classify people. There is no internal conflict for me, because you guys are preaching populism not democracy, and I for one sees it :) or not (matter of opinion!) As for pointing at some one a racist, I am talking about you only Anon!

    Also, liberal democrat don't have to believe in exact the same thing. For example, I believe in high taxation, and strong government regulation on our banking industry. I also believe several illegal drugs should be made legal and be regulated i.e. pot and ecstasy. So should prostitution. At the same time, I want minimum regulation on the right to bear arms, so I can arm myself if necessary (unlike most liberal democrats).

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.