First, from the Beijing side: their position on the alleged "1992 Consensus" as reported in the Washington Times....China stands ready to discuss a broad range of sensitive military, economic and diplomatic issues with Taiwan if the island's new government accepts Beijing's terms on national sovereignty, China's U.S. Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong said Thursday.
"We have made clear that as long as they agree to the one-China principle, everything can be discussed," Mr. Zhou said, including such topics as China's military buildup across the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan's participation in international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
In other words, there is no 1992 consensus with "one China, two interpretations." There is only One China, and it is ruled from Beijing. Not only does the Ambassador make that crystal clear, I've heard that the Chinese have also articulated that position privately to US observers.
President of the ROC Ma Ying-jeou was also mentioned as articulating his position in an interview with the Japanese:
Mr. Zhou's suggestion that China would be willing to discuss its military buildup came as Mr. Ma told the Japanese Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, in its edition published Friday, that the withdrawal of China's missile arsenal opposite the island was a precondition for talks on an ultimate political settlement.
"In order to reconcile with each other, we should hold peace talks on both sides [of the Taiwan Strait]," Mr. Ma said. "In that case, prior to ... talks, I would demand the withdrawal of the missiles or some other way to remove the threat."
The interview in the Daily Yomiuri is here. Ma talks a lot tougher when he is speaking outside Taiwan than in it, so to speak. But remember that the backdrop to Ma's claim that "Taiwan won't negotiate on sovereignty while the missiles still point" is the ongoing private discussions between the CCP and the KMT, presumably on the annexation of Taiwan. In other words, Ma's claim is totally hollow, even more so because of the obvious hedge: "I would demand the withdrawal of the missiles or some other way to remove the threat." A very typical Ma "statement" -- completely qualified, and hollow to the core.
Ma also said he'd accept the pandas from China -- a shame to subsidize China in caring for animals it already has a program to save, when funding for Taiwan's own unique organisms is so limited. Wasteful and stupid.
Is Ma trying to put a spike in the KMT Old Guard by putting limits on the negotiations with China? The accession of Jason Yuan, another Old Guarder, to the position of Taipei's rep in Washington is yet another example of how Ma is simply being sidelined by the powerful elites who want annexation and want it now. It is they who are talking to the Chinese. Not an issue yet is the ROC Constitution, which might complicate annexation, though I suppose it will just be a case of:
Londo Mollari: We have treaties!
Lord Refa: Ink on a page!
[Taiwan]
It is presumptuous to think that Beijing is going to discuss a final solution to the Taiwan problem without its missiles in place. That is why they are there in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who has ever signed a contract with a large company knows the paperwork is already drawn up by their attorneys. It is non negotiable.
What Ma has to say is tongue wagging for the electorate. His only currency is ass kissing, the extent to which is also determined by Beijing.
Just curious... is anyone else out there hearing the quiet rumblings of discontent with Ma in the general electorate?
ReplyDeleteI don't like the way this is going at all. Ma's qualification and Wu Po-hsiung's comments that he 'felt' that China would not use the missiles, suggest that Ma may end up accepting a promise not to use the missiles in exchange for an ultimate solution that will involve acknowledging one China and ending arms sales with the US. In other words, Taiwan will give up a lot and China will give up nothing. Not a good way negotiate.
ReplyDeleteThere were some interesting comments in the Chinese-language press by Chen Ming-tong the other day suggesting that the DPP had bundled cargo flights together with tourism and passenger flights in their package and that China had refused to negotiate on cargo flights. Cargo flights are crucial to Taiwan and would be dominated by Taiwanese carriers binding the Taiwanese IT industry to its manufacturing empire in China and making it less urgent for them to move to Taiwan. If so, the cargo flight issue should be watched closely.
I think anonymous is referring to what are known as unconscionable contracts made between large corporations and consumers. Because of the disparity in bargaining power, these contracts are often struck down. This is precisely why it is so critical for Taiwan to insist on being treated as a sovereign equal in negotiations with China.
Excellent Post!
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to know what the general feeling among Taiwanese are right now? Do they even know of what is going on with what Taiwan is seemingly going to give up in these negotiations? Or do they not understand? Or are they still seeing the $$$ signs?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, there is no 1992 consensus with "one China, two interpretations." There is only One China, and it is ruled from Beijing. Not only does the Ambassador make that crystal clear, I've heard that the Chinese have also articulated that position privately to US observers.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, "one China two interpretations" has one China in them. So I don't see what's the point of this statement. Btw, what's the official name for Taiwan? Yes, it is Republic of China. You may not like it but last time I checked it hasn't changed. US' position is also "one China," except we just won't tell you that Taiwan is part of China or not.
I still don't get it why smart people like you guys think missiles is such a big deal. First, how do you count missiles aiming at Taiwan? Is it any missiles in range? That will also mean that they are aiming at Japan? Also, would you much prefer China aiming only 10 missiles at you but each one has one of this warhead.
http://tinyurl.com/4etxps
I know that's ours but if you ever see that on the sky...DUCK (probably too late though).
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI am hearing quite a bit of rumbling, but, just like it always has been, dissent against the KMT is still kept to hushed tones after testing the political waters of whomever you are discussing with. White terror still grips a lot of people... especially after 2004 and the whole red movement.
With Ma's margin of victory, I think people are also afraid they are alone and outnumbered. Though, that may not be the case as people voted for Ma for different reasons.
ReplyDeleteI still don't get it why smart people like you guys think missiles is such a big deal.
They are a key concrete symbol of China's actual intentions, don't you think.
Michael
Arty claims he identifies as American, yet cares so much about Taiwanese politics that he's always posting on this blog, then he cares nothing about the defense of Taiwan itself.
ReplyDeleteSo many contradictions... such is the life of a man clinging to his "ethnic" background with accompanying Chinese nationalistic ideology and irrational antipathy towards democracy and self-determination.
+1 Michael
ReplyDeleteMissiles are surely not an overture of peace. Especially when you look at the "threat" they are trying to deter.
dejure independence and a continuation of the reality of two different states is treated as a military threat? Who's the aggressor again? Oh.. that's right...it's that no good Chen Shui Bian.
I've heard a lot of KMT people discontent with all the flip-flopping. They expected more decisioon power from the Govt.
ReplyDeleteTo tell you the truth, I do not understand the silk glove soft treatment of so many issues. Don't they have mayority in the Legislature, too.
As to contracts and stuff, word outside of Taiwan years ago among the Overseas Chinese community was that an agreement had already been reached to hand up Taiwan eventually as long as there was no violence. Don't know if there is any truth to it, but it seems plausible.
Arty,
ReplyDeleteThe US does not have a one-China policy. At least on paper, they "acknowledge" China's one-China policy.
As for China's insistence on never mentioning the separate interpretations, it is important. They are packaging this locally as a capitulation. They really need to be more honest and admit the bit about the separate interpretations. Otherwise, there was no reason to come to any "1992 Consensus" at all.
They are a key concrete symbol of China's actual intentions, don't you think.
ReplyDeleteSo when we aiming our ICBMs at Russia and China, we must really want to nuke them and vice versa. And we are the one aiming at them first because we have it first!
Arty claims he identifies as American, yet cares so much about Taiwanese politics that he's always posting on this blog, then he cares nothing about the defense of Taiwan itself.
So many contradictions... such is the life of a man clinging to his "ethnic" background with accompanying Chinese nationalistic ideology and irrational antipathy towards democracy and self-determination.
Contradictions? No, I just don't want my country to fight a war that is not necessary. Ever heard of "You May Not Be Interested in Politics, But That Doesn't Mean Politics Isn't Interested In You" Also, where do I clinging to my ethnic background? Last time, I checked when someone said he/she is an American, you can't tell his/her ethnicity or race unless he/she is right in front of you. And talk about irrational antipathy towards democracy and self-determination, do you know if Puerto Rico elected to be independent tomorrow, the US might have to declare war on her? Since, it will be on the boundary of committing high crime against the state for losing US territory without a fight. Keep playing your race cards, it certainly won't make DPP win next election.
"So when we aiming our ICBMs at Russia and China, we must really want to nuke them and vice versa."
ReplyDeleteYour comparison is not valid. Whether or not Russia or China have them "pointed" at the US is invalid since those weapons can be programmed to "point" anywhere in no time. And none of the countries in question have threatened officially to use them in recent years. And all three have the weapons, meaning all fear MAD. You can't compare it with Taiwan, which has not threatened China with an attack and which doesn't even have the weapons to use.
"do you know if Puerto Rico elected to be independent tomorrow, the US might have to declare war on her? Since, it will be on the boundary of committing high crime against the state for losing US territory without a fight."
Arty don't be stupid, and that is exactly how you sound. There has never been strong resistance in the US to an independent Puerto Rico. What keeps Puerto Rico as a US territory is the attitude of its citizens, very few of whom really want total independence (below 10 percent), and about half of whom want statehood. As a result, the Puerto Ricans have never asked Congress for independence, and they probably won't unless the US forces it on them. They receive Social Security and other benefits and US citizenship without the same tax burden as well as free military protection. Ask and ye shall receive. They haven't asked.
Would the US declare war if Puerto Rico wanted independence? No war was declared on the Philippines. No war was declared on Cuba. Both former territories were gained by the US at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, which is the same war that saw Puerto Rico transferred to the US. No US authority has ever threatened the use of military force. And I have never met a current American who gives a hoot whether Puerto Rico stays or goes (half probably don't even know it is a territory of the US).
However, thank you for once again pointing out how baseless comparisons between Taiwan/China and part-of-US/US comparisons are.
.
ReplyDelete.
.
1) I'd like to restate that a consensus that has both parties disagreeing on the main principle is no consensus at all. George Orwell is rolling in his grave right now.
2) I would like to add that the 1500 missiles that are pointing towards Taiwan are coupled with a piece of legislation called the "Anti-Secession Law". Perhaps you've heard of it, Arty? This law not only breaks the status-quo, it is an act of aggression that many countries would consider an act of war -- most notably the United States of America.
3) PandaMa is conforming to my nickname quite well I would say. Congratulations, Taiwanese citizens!! You've got no one to blame but yourselves.
.
.
.
Arty, most Americans wouldn't really care if Puerto Rico declared independence or not. The status of Puerto Rico is probably one of those Jay Leno Jay-Walking questions that would stump half the population. But I'm going to back myself up with two clear examples of territories becoming independent from the US: 1) The Philippines gained independence after World War II. 2) The Panama Canal Zone was also rightfully handed back to Panama.
ReplyDeleteFor States admitted to the Union, it is true that there is no self-determination allowed once you vote to join, but that is a special case of one-time self-determination. There's a principal there too, in that the power of the Federal government would be subject to the threat of succession anytime anything controversial was to be implemented. That is very unlike the irredentist quasi-historical claims that are used by China on Taiwan. Taiwan at no point ever willingly as a whole joined the PRC, the ROC or the Qing Dynasty. Michael and others regularly review the history of that so I don't want to bother.
Anyways, sort of off-topic, but because Arty hasn't lived in Taiwan in awhile. Arty--your position would be in the minority here. Culture and identity are out of my field of expertise but seriously, Taiwanese identification and consciousness is really, really strong. Regardless of the policies of the current administration, my own estimation is that if they bother trying, they will find it nearly impossible to reverse the trends towards a Taiwanese identity that has occured over the course of the last 20 years.
On the DPP--I think that the KMT has found that they can play the Taiwan card too, but if Chinese identity and unification are of any importance to them, they've merely won the battle only to lose the war. The Mandarin that is spoken in Taiwan is continuing to diverge from China, and the current generation growing up has a collective familiarity and comfort with English (even if not fluency) that on average, far surpasses that of China.
I think it's an interesting situation where people are worried, but all the long-term basic trends are pointing towards an even more psychologically and culturally independent Taiwan, even if the KMT continues to hold power.
This ramble may sound a bit tinhat, but I will throw it out for thought anyway...
ReplyDeleteRegarding missiles, its interesting that the USA has recently developed a nuclear "first strike" option. The question is who would they use this on?
Iran is in the news again mainly because of Israel's desire to wipe it off the map along with the AIPAC led neo-cons. The problem is the neo-cons have already lost power in the US gov't. A telling sign, among many, is that the top two Air Force brass recently got shit-canned. This happened coincidentally a day or two after Obama got the Dem slot for president.
If the Israelis are dumb enough to nuke Iran alone, then they, and likewise the USA will be in deep shit. The Iranians will want payback and this will be an American city wiped out. (according to Scott Ritter, someone I believe.)
Regarding Obama, one must look at what he brings to the table. If you dig into his background, he is surrounded by longtime Rockefeller Trilateralist leaders Zbigniew Brzezinski and Paul Volker. Zbig is the rabid Russian hater and Volker was the FED Chairman who jacked up interest rates (which lead to the beginning of the USA job outsourcing). Also somewhat interesting is that it's been reported that Obama's Columbia U. thesis was on Soviet nuclear disarmament. Zbig was a professor at Columbia for awhile and perhaps gave advice to BHO. They are very close, regardless. Russia has gain a lot of ground lately with oil prices so high.
From the most (un)believable tea leaves that I've read so far, this is what I am seeing - Brezinski's plan is to force Russia and China into conflict.
(Remember, he is the guy responsible for pushing the Soviets into invading Afganistan + he is involved in putting the missles/com gear into Poland and the Czech republic.)
How? Just a guess, but first they would gain real control of the Iraqi oil. This would be some type of appeasement with Iran. Israel will get what they want, control of the Iraqi oil spigot in Haifa. Once the ME has some stability, the US (with their new AFRICOM command and new 4th fleet, will try to push the Chinese out of Africa. (and Venezuela).
The Chinese, desperate for oil to keep the economy growing (and keep the masses from rioting), will have no choice but to make a move on either central Asia (Russian control) or the Russian Far East.
How Taiwan fits into this, I am guessing, is that if there is a liquidity meltdown on Wall St., the PRC will make their move. (cybercontrol + block shipping lanes + KMT capitulation??). The USA will be in turmoil for a short while and it may be the one window of opportunity they have. It is strange how the Sichuan earthquake ~karma thing happened just as things are coming to a head. This, I think will make it more difficult for China to maneuver. How Japan and Korea would react to a move on Taiwan (since open sea lanes are necessary for their oil supply) I have no idea.
Regarding Taiwan business, at the very least, Volker will induce severe austerity measures within the USA in '09 and the market there for many imported goods will dry up. Taiwan will have to develop new markets. (not a chance). Ma's iTaiwan projects will also bankrupt the ROC since tax revenues will dry up.
Back to the nuke option, BHO has already stated many times in speeches that he will bomb/invade Pakistan without authority from Paki leaders. Will this be the start of the nuke escalation to slam the hammer down? (China, Pakistan, India, Russia all have relationships)
In the end... I don't know. Russia still has some of the most advanced weapons and a first strike on their missiles may be what Zbig is thinking after they are weekened by China.
Also, the USA has a foreign debt so large they can never pay it back so a China (and SCO) decimation may be in their best financial interest. Somehow the USA will have to deal strategically with it's "near peers". If you read the air force link posted above, you can read between the lines and see China is on their mind.
Sorry, I am short on time and typed this out fast. I know this is really a stretch.
To simplify Thomas's point on identity. The important issue is that most Taiwanese consider Chinese to be "they" and not "we". There are some scholars who have devised some interesting and widely applied means to analyze why this happens, but bloodwork is not part of it. Study after study confirms the frequent negotiation and renegotiation of these identities. Now, it could change under the right conditions, Chinese nationalization (sinicization) and Taiwanese nationalization... neither is more authentic than the other... the only difference is which one more accurately represents how people imagine themselves.
ReplyDeleteThomas, thanks for the enlightenment on the Puerto Rico situation. I will remember that.
ReplyDeleteAs far as missiles could be PROGRAMED at any moment to point at anywhere in no time as you stated. Clearly you don't think that way about missiles pointing at Taiwan. Btw, Russia did threaten us, actually Euro, with their missiles recently, here is a link!
http://tinyurl.com/3sf86o
If we insist on building a missile defense shield without Russia been involved.
thomas wrote:"Would the US declare war if Puerto Rico wanted independence? No war was declared on the Philippines."
ReplyDeleteIn both those cases the U.S. prevented independence. In the case of the Philippines the U.S. did it using genocidal war crime village slaughtering woman and children killing methods that would have made the Nazis or Vietcong proud.
But that was 100 years ago. The U.S. is no longer living in the 19th century. China apparantly still is.
U.S. methods in the Philippines changed in part because we had free press rights and when word got back to U.S. of the atrocities being committed by our troops, Americans complained. Would the same happen in China?