Well, I've been using Kindle for over a month now. Let me put it this way: if you want my Kindle, you will have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. The whole family has one -- so far only one problem: bathroom stays have lengthened considerably.....
Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in Foreign Policy, managing to concentrate an amazing variety of error and Beijing-flavored misunderstanding in just a small space:
Since 1972, the United States has formally accepted the mainland's "one China" formula while maintaining that neither side shall alter the status quo by force.1Beijing, however, reserves the right to use force, which allows Washington to justify its continued arms sales to Taiwan. In recent years, Taiwan and China have been improving their relationship.2 America's decline, however, would increase Taiwan's vulnerability, leaving decision-makers in Taipei more susceptible to direct Chinese pressure and the sheer attraction of an economically successful China. That, at the least, could speed up the timetable for cross-strait reunification, but on unequal terms favoring the mainland.31 - US policy is that Taiwan's status is undetermined. As the CRS writes:
The United States has its own position on Taiwan’s status. Not recognizing the PRC’s claim over Taiwan nor Taiwan as a sovereign state, U.S. policy has considered Taiwan’s status as unsettled.In the 1972 Communique the US acknowledges but does not recognize China's claim to Taiwan. How could someone who once had a major influence over US policy be so ignorant of what that policy is? On the other hand, why am I not surprised?
2 - The CCP and the KMT, not China and Taiwan, have been improving their relationship, using Taiwan as a bargaining chip.
3 - Who on earth could imagine that China would ever annex Taiwan on terms unfavorable to itself? All forms of annexation are inherently favorable to China since it has no valid claim to Taiwan! Nor is "reunification" taking place, since Taiwan has never been part of any Chinese emperor's domain. It is sad that Brzenzski adopts the language and attitude of Beijing throughout this little paragraph.
Speaking of our expansionist counterparts from across the Strait, The Times of India reports that China is once again playing visa games with the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh:
India has put "on hold" the visit of a 30-strong military delegation to China next week after Beijing refused to issue a visa to one member, a colonel-rank IAF officer who hails from Arunachal Pradesh.This comes at a time of cooling tensions, too. China says Arunachal Pradesh is part of China because it contains many ethnic Tibetans, who are "Chinese" because China has annexed Tibet, so all Tibetans are "Chinese." It calls Arunachal Pradesh "South Tibet" and has done other things, such as attempting to block international loans for development in the region, to enforce its completely bogus claim.
The implications of this are scary. How many more years until China starts playing similar visa games with other areas on its radar, like Okinawa? It also shows how one acquisition, Tibet, has lead inexorably to a new claim.
LOVE THE FRAMING: Bloomberg Businessweek reports:
The Philippines protested a new “intrusion” by China in waters it claims to be Philippine territory, a move that threatens to revive tensions over areas of the South China Sea that may contain energy reserves.LOL. The cause of tension isn't China's increasing aggressiveness, but protests of that aggressiveness.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.
"This comes at a time of cooling tensions, too. China says Arunachal Pradesh is part of China because it contains many ethnic Tibetans, who are "Chinese" because China has annexed Tibet, so all Tibetans are 'Chinese.'"
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that China's claims over AP should be acknowledged merely because I think it should be up to the people who live in AP to decide. And based on the treatment of Tibetans, I don't think it is surprising that we don't hear of people in AP clamoring to join China. However, I think it is fair to explain that China's claims over AP are based on much more than the fact that ethnic Tibetans live in AP.
The British took up residency in AP many years after signing an obscure treaty with Tibet that effectively moved India's border further north into what had legitimately been a part of Tibet. The Tibetans were none too happy about this, but they needed Britain more than Britain needed Tibet and, in any event, they were in no position to fight a war with the British over the area. And, of course, they had signed a treaty. The Chinese deny that AP is a part of India based on their failure to recognize the treaty in question. Since, in the Chinese fictional universe, Tibet has been a part of China for centuries, Tibet had no authority to sign the treaty in question with the British. Therefore, the treaty is invalid for China, and India, the successor to the British Raj, is today illegally occupying what is Chinese territory. For China, to accept the current border is akin to accepting that Tibet actually did have the ability to sign international treaties. The Chinese do not wish to go down that path because they have based the narrative of their occupation of Tibet itself on a fiction that Tibet was never independent.
This is why the border dispute with India remains a bitch to handle. It is also why India should very definitely be wary of China's presence on its northern border.
Thanks, an excellent summary.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the bloomberg bit is very poorly written and I'm not necessarily convinced that the move it refers to is the protest, rather than the intrusion. It may well be, but it seems impossible to be sure in this case what the reporter meant. This may have been his intention, but, hehe.
ReplyDelete"This comes at a time of cooling tensions, too. China says Arunachal Pradesh is part of China because it contains many ethnic Tibetans, who are "Chinese" because China has annexed Tibet, so all Tibetans are 'Chinese.'"
ReplyDeleteNext, China will annex San Francisco, Vancouver and Berkeley - with all its Tibetans and ethnic Chinese
"US policy is that Taiwan's status is undetermined. As the CRS writes: ... "
ReplyDeleteYou do know, Michael Turton, that the Congressional Research Service is a think tank that does research for members of the US Congress. The CSR does not decide on US foreign policy.
In fact, the Shanghai Communique of 1972 between the USA and PRC says this in Article 12:
"The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves."
In the 1979 Communique, in Article 7 it says:
" The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan."
These two communiques are not ambiguous at all and so far in any crucial decision (e.g. the sale of F16s), the United States government has followed them. The opinion of the CSR is only one interpretation that is obviously not followed by the US executive but only a group of congressmen who from time to time invite politicians from Taiwan or visit Taipei.
the book 1421 The Year China Discovered America caused some controversy from historians and scholars. i know the author committed lots of time to his research, so i think it is just a coincidence
ReplyDeleteprobably it is too far-fetched, ... but still ...
it just so happens his main idea nicely fits into Beijing's territorial claims and expansion.
even i do not think, Chinese authorities would come up with such a PR / soft power idea to spread their demands in the pop-culture, but if so - works great, lots of people see it the way the author presented it
P.S. Marc - great comment
he opinion of the CSR is only one interpretation that is obviously not followed by the US executive but only a group of congressmen who from time to time invite politicians from Taiwan or visit Taipei.
ReplyDeleteFree, the CRS report is a summary of US policy as it has been for the last 50 years. It is not attempting to make policy, but to describe our current policy.
The reason the US used the term acknowledges is precisely because it does not accept that claim. Thus the 'One China' policies of Washington and Beijing are different.
That our State Department is quite reluctant to say this aloud does not mean that it is not our policy.
This information has long been known, is common knowledge, and is accessible from any good text on US-China-Taiwan relations. If you are going to participate in the discussions here, it might be a good idea to learn about the policy of the United States.
Michael
To be fair, the bloomberg bit is very poorly written and I'm not necessarily convinced that the move it refers to is the protest, rather than the intrusion.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I thought of that too, and the second half of the article does point to China as the source of the trouble.
But as you say: Hehehehe
"Free, the CRS report is a summary of US policy as it has been for the last 50 years. It is not attempting to make policy, but to describe our current policy."
ReplyDeleteSimply not true. The Congressional Research Service issues opinions from a purely legislative viewpoint. The US foreign policy and treatment of Taiwanese authorities has for the past thirty years been in line with the PRC's interpretation of the One China Principle.
Or put it this way:
The United States of America recognize only One China, the PRC. All US administrations since 1979 often reaffirmed that Taiwan is part of One China.
"That our State Department is quite reluctant to say this aloud does not mean that it is not our policy."
The State Department is part of the executive branch, which totally subscribes to the PRC's One China Principle. The CRS, which you use to back your claims, reflects the legislative branch of government - which has no power in foreign policy.
Admittedly, there has been some unofficial "parliament diplomacy" going on between the US Congress and Taiwan, yet that in no way supersedes international treaties signed by the Secretary of State.
All US administrations since 1979 often reaffirmed that Taiwan is part of One China.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Examples, please.
No, seriously Free, you need to bone up on this. The latest CRS report, which describes US policy as carried out by the various policy organs, is Shirley Kan's June 2011 report.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30341.pdf
The difference you maintain between the legislative and executive branches in formal policy is illusory; both have the same formal position: the status of Taiwan is undecided. Kan accurately describes this. Its a good primer on the evolution of the policy.
When Chen Shui-bian sent the letter to Ban Ki-moon, the US State Department itself reminded Ban that the status of Taiwan was undecided. They weren't happy about it, but that is the policy they are committed to.
Michael
"...The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China...."
ReplyDelete-----
I wanted to point out that "all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait" in the text refers to those who identify themselves as Chinese. The position of the Taiwanese was not mentioned, nor denied (of its existence.)
The 1972 Communique never declared/defined all residents on Taiwan as Chinese.
Diplomatic language is always extremely delicate. Not only is what's said important but also what is not said. Therein lies the space for further diplomacy play.
I agree with Michael. I've never seen any document that locks the US position in accepting Taiwan as part of the PRC.
In fact, it was reported that in August, 2007 the US, Australia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand "protested against UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon using the phrase 'Taiwan is part of China' in July, 2007, according to a confidential cable (dated Aug 16, 2007), sent by the US’ UN mission as released by WikiLeaks".
is there an advantage other than cost to getting a kindle instead of an ipad?
ReplyDeleteDear Professor Turton,
ReplyDeleteYou will regret the Kindle one day, someday, now you are just i love with a new sleek gadget, but be careful, lad, and i will tell you why: I was also given a kindle for christmas and decided to go with the times and try it rather than seeing it as the enemy of books. I can see that it is useful and i'm sure fantastic for many people but no matter how hard i try i just dont like it. Long live proper books that have real meaning to them!
Ellen Marller,
Taibei City