Reuters becomes the latest news service to treat Chinese propaganda on the Anti-Secession Law as something meaningful and important. First, the news story itself:China cannot compromise on its claim to Taiwan and is ready for "grave" scenarios, a top adviser said, days after the island's ruling party resolved to recommend a new constitution, with implications of independence from China.The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) approved the controversial "Normal Country Resolution" on Sunday, calling for a new constitution for Taiwan as an independent sovereign state to replace its current one, which still binds the two sides.
China has claimed sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949 and pledged to bring the democratic island's 23 million people under its rule, by force if necessary.
"The essence of the resolution is to pursue de jure Taiwan independence," wrote Yu Keli, a prominent Taiwan expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), in a signed commentary run by the official Xinhua news agency on Wednesday.
"The Taiwan issue concerns China's core interests and the mainland does not have any room for compromise," Yu wrote. CASS is the government's top think tank.
Analysts say China is obliged by the 2005 Anti-Secession Law to react if the referendum is passed, but any decision will be tricky because it does not want to ruin the Summer Olympics, which Beijing will host in August next year.
Analysts say China is obliged by its security laws to execute dissidents.
Analysts say China is obliged by its Constitution to permit freedom of religion.
Analysts say that China is obliged by its legal framework to give full faith and credence to all contracts signed in China.
Jerome Keating sent this around:
The Nelson Report, the well-known Washington insider report from Chris Nelson, on the US, Taiwan, and arms purchases. I've highlighted certain sections, and left comments after others. This is a long piece, well-written, and insightful from someone with an involvement in Taiwan affairs that dates back some thirty years......
John Tkacik has a wonderful piece that gives a behind-the-scenes look at the recent US response to Taiwan's UN drive, as well as some historical information on the San Francisco Peace Treaty."In accordance with that resolution, the United Nations considers Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the People's Republic of China," he said.The position of the United States, up until Henry Kissinger, the Dementor of US foreign policy, decided to sell the island out, was that the status of Taiwan was undecided, a position also held by the other major Powers. As late as the Nixon Administration State Department officials regularly testified that Taiwan's status was yet to be determined. But then Nixon decided it would be a great idea to get Chinese cooperation on Vietnam........
"For all purposes?" Could the UN secretary-general unilaterally and without consultation make a major pronouncement in international law on the status of 23 million people?
This caused such diplomatic concern in Washington and Taipei that both sides tried to keep it secret.
The US State Department, in its own methodical way, convened internal meetings and disseminated several confidential memorandums on how it might neutralize the secretary-general's stance without angering China.
This, of course, was impossible. Indeed, many officials in the department believe that Taiwan had brought all this on itself.
Others, however, argued (successfully) that unless Ban's pronouncement were reversed, Taiwan may find itself bound by a number of international protocols under China's signature.
The Department of Agriculture was particularly concerned that China, which bans US beef, would ensure via the World Organization for Animal Health (known by the French acronym "OIE") that Taiwan cease imports of the meat.
So, after considerable internal consultation, a delegation of US diplomats quietly approached one of their only friends in the UN Secretariat, Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe.
Pascoe, a retired US ambassador, once served as the director of the American Institute in Taiwan. Pascoe was sympathetic, but demurred that the issue was a "legal" one, not a political one. He directed the Americans to UN Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Larry Johnson.
In late July, the Americans confronted Johnson on Ban's letter. The assertion that Taiwan was "for all purposes an integral part of the PRC [People's Republic of China]" was very disturbing, the US diplomats said, because "while this assertion is consistent with the Chinese position, it is not universally held by UN member states, including the United States."
Significantly, China's position is held neither by Japan, nor the UK, Canada, Australia nor New Zealand, all of which signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 under which "Japan renounce[d] all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores [Penghu]," but the treaty did not add to whom "right, title and claim" to Formosa might ultimately devolve.
At the time, Britain set down for the record that, while the treaty provided for Japan to renounce sovereignty over Taiwan, "the treaty itself does not determine the future of these islands." As such, Britain was happy to sign it, as did Australia and New Zealand.
However, accounts of President Nixon's secret talks with PRC Premier Zhou Enlai in China in 1972 reported that Nixon made promises on the question of Taiwan in return for diplomatic normalization that went beyond the communique issued at the end. The Carter Administration later called the promises: "Nixon's Five Points." Also, according to Assistant Secretary of State Stanley Roth's March 1999 testimony, Nixon pledged no U.S. support for Taiwan independence (second time after Kissinger's 1971 promise): "We have not and will not support any Taiwan independence movement." With the release on December 11, 2003, of declassified memoranda of conversation of the secret talks between Nixon and Zhou, there was confirmation that Nixon stated as first of Five Principles that "there is one China, and Taiwan is a part of China. There will be no more statements made -- if I can control our bureaucracy — to the effect that the status of Taiwan is undetermined." (source)
The Nelson Report, which caters to politicians in the US capital, quoted sources close to the Bush administration as saying that the purchase would not happen soon, if at all.
The sources said that the White House, not the State Department or the Department of Defense, was blocking the deal.
The report also said that Bush was holding on to control over US-Taiwan policy and was concerned that sending positive signals to President Chen Shui-bian (
陳水扁 ) could destabilize the "status quo."Although the Taiwan Relations Act allows the US to sell arms to Taiwan based solely on Taiwan's defense needs, the report said that the Bush administration felt separating the issue from US-China relations was difficult.
The report quoted the sources as saying that the Taiwan Relations Act did not necessarily justify the sale of F-16s to Taiwan's military and that the administration was debating Taiwan's defense needs.
Taiwan is suing the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) over its reference to the country as "Taiwan Province, China" instead of "Republic of China (Taiwan)." This is the first time that Taiwan has taken legal action against an important international organization.
The foreign ministry said Tuesday that Taiwan filed the suit with a Geneva court in July after the ISO failed to rectify Taiwan's designation in the ISO 3166 country codes list.
The ministry said that this misleading situation not only causes misunderstanding about Taiwan but also undermines Taiwan's national status.
The Geneva-based ISO is an international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.
The China Post reports on a traveling exhibition of photos of American native peoples:The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the National Taiwan Museum are co-sponsoring the exhibit, which runs from Sept. 19 to Oct. 21 at the National Taiwan Museum. It will be shown around Taiwan, then in Hong Kong.
"The exhibition's staying here four months, the longest of any country on the tour," said Nick Papp, director of the AIT's American Cultural Culture. "This is because we've had a very strong response, a high level of interest in Native American culture here in Taiwan."
One reason for the heightened interest, he says, is "Curtis had an amazing ability to capture the soul and sensitivities of life in the early 1900s for American Indians," Papp said.
The other reason, he says is that "Taiwan is facing many of the same challenges as it struggles to preserve its own indigenous cultures and legacy," and "Maybe similar photographic projects can be undertaken here to help preserve the indigenous people's way of life."
"Curtis was one of the first Americans who devoted his life to cultural preservation -- basically he created an encyclopedia. In one sense, he was a pioneer in American cultural preservation," Papp said.
In 1907, Edward Curtis began an undertaking that would consume him for the next 30 years: the creation of his magnum opus, "The North American Indian," a 20-volume set of handmade books with 1,500 photos, financed in part by industrialist J.P. Morgan.
Curtis visited more than 80 tribes across the country, north into Alaska and parts of Canada. Eventually, he took more than 40,000 photographs, made over 10,000 recordings of Native language and music, produced lectures, slide shows, and a multi-media Curtis Indian Picture Opera throughout the U.S.; and in 1914 directed "In the Land of the Headhunters," an innovative, seminal film documentary on the Kwakiutl tribe.
Curtis' pictures of Native Americans between 1900 and 1930 are the most comprehensive photo-ethnographic record of the North American Indians ever created. In many cases, his material is the only recorded history in existence.
As the DPP decides its view on Taiwan's future status, China fulminates. But as always, it is important to ignore what Chinese say and watch what they do. And what China has done is a clear signal. It has reshuffled its military leadership to bring to the fore officers with Taiwan-related military backgrounds:At least five members of the new CMC lineup have Taiwan-affairs credentials: both Chen Bingde and Liang Guanglie in the 1990s worked successively as Commander of Nanjing Military Area Command, which covers and concentrates on the Taiwan Strait. Wu Shengli used to be the chief of staff and commander of a navy base in Fujian province, facing Taiwan across the strait. Both Li Jinai and Jing Zhiyuan are experts in missile deployment, which would be the opening salvo and a major force in any potential attack against Taiwan.The Communist Party Congress, slated for later this month, will all be about Taiwan. It is probably dawning on wiser heads that the long-term does not favor the PRC -- the PRC's local ally, the KMT, might not win the election, and Taiwanese are increasingly pro-democracy and pro-Taiwan. Meanwhile PRC propaganda has been too successful: the population is convinced that Taiwan is necessary to secure its future happiness. Probably shouldn't have hung the government's legitimacy on Taiwan....all of this would be so much blather, if the Bush Administration wasn't breaking our military and our treasury in two losing wars, and now contemplating another loss against Iran. Of course, there are those who might perceive that the putative strike on the Republican Guard of Iran is actually a warning to China....
Their promotion highlights Beijing’s growing concern with the situation on the Taiwan Strait. Beijing has become increasingly unhappy with Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian’s proposed referendum on the island’s UN membership bid, which Beijing regards as a big step towards de facto independence. Beijing could use its Anti-Secession Law to justify using force against Taiwan if the island declares formal independence. Therefore the new military lineup sends a strong political message.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) national congress yesterday passed the party's "Normal Country" Resolution, maintaining the version approved by the party's Central Executive Committee on Thursday while rejecting a proposed amendment that stressed the need for the nation to change its official title to "Taiwan."
The final resolution stipulates that the nation should "accomplish rectification of the name `Taiwan' as soon as possible and write a new constitution." It also highlights the need for the nation to hold a referendum to "emphasize Taiwan's independent statehood at an appropriate time."
The congress passed the resolution with applause rather than resorting to a vote.
The congress, however, rejected a proposed amendment initiated by former chairman Yu Shyi-kun, who sought to include a clause that read: "Our nation should write a new constitution and correct its official title to `Taiwan.'"
Yu's proposal, endorsed by 37 congress representatives, only won 43 affirmative votes out of 328 representatives present at the congress.
Doug Bandow has a long piece on US-Taiwan-China relations in the current American Spectator. A highlight:AT THE SAME TIME, the presumed U.S. security commitment has discouraged Taiwanese military investment. For four years the KMT-dominated legislative Yuan blocked the government's military budget. The two sides recently agreed on new orders for U.S. arms, but the effort remains seriously underfunded. The Chen government possesses no more political clout in pushing its proposed 16.4 percent defense spending hike next year.
Justin Logan and Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute warn of "a massive disparity in defense capacity" and that "Taiwan's qualitative military advantage over China is dwindling along every metric." While Taipei cannot expect to match the military forces of its much larger neighbor, it need merely make the chance of success too uncertain and the price of success too high to deter Beijing from military adventurism. A robust Taiwanese defense capacity is the best means to encourage continued Chinese caution and patience.
The assumption that America will protect Taiwan, irrespective of how irresponsibly its leaders might act, has created an extraordinarily dangerous situation. Note Logan and Carpenter: "A bold cross-strait policy coupled with inadequate defense spending virtually invites a PRC challenge at some point. And America would be caught right in the middle."
The potential for a series of mistakes leading to war brings to mind the summer of 1914 and World War I. Taiwan challenges China, assuming Washington will step in if things go awry. The PRC acts aggressively, assuming the U.S. won't get involved. The U.S. intervenes, assuming China will back down. A shot is fired by someone. And so begins the first Sino-American war.
IT'S TIME FOR A SERIOUS rethinking of American policy towards the Taiwan Strait. Washington should not allow a client state to determine its defense strategy. Lecturing Taiwan not to behave provocatively has failed. Washington must not allow even a close friend to drag America into war with a significant regional power where U.S. security interests are marginal.
Thus, Washington should inform Taiwan that nothing -- the Taiwan Relations Act, America Cold War defense requirements, or profitable economic relationship -- commits the America to intervene in a conflict involving China. While the U.S. will sell Taipei whatever weapons that it desires, Taiwan will be responsible for fashioning a political and military strategy to deter PRC adventurism. America always could intervene if the circumstances warranted, but would do so only if the threat to U.S. interests warranted the risk of nuclear war, an unlikely contingency.
On the other hand, American officials should no longer opine on the perceived merit of Taiwanese domestic politics or international relations. Moreover, Washington could dismiss complaints from China about other aspects of U.S.-Taipei dealings -- providing visas to Taiwanese officials to visit America, for instance.
At the same time, the U.S. should make clear to Beijing that war would have a disastrous impact on the PRC's "peaceful rise" strategy. Economic retaliation from America, Europe, and Japan would be inevitable. China's Asian neighbors, particularly Canberra, Tokyo, and Seoul, would be forced to adjust their policies towards the PRC. Beijing would end up tossing away the gains of years of patient diplomacy in its reach for global leadership.
It is unfortunate that Taiwan is caught in the ever- lengthening shadow cast by its huge neighbor. But guaranteeing Taipei's independence is becoming ever more dangerous for Washington. China is becoming stronger and more assertive; Taiwan is becoming weaker and more assertive. The combination is combustible. Now, before a violent confrontation, is the time for Washington to refashion its Taiwan policy.
From worldwide sources, including the United States, Taiwan received $13.9 billion in arms deliveries in the eight-year period from 1998 to 2005. Taiwan ranked 3rd (behind Saudi Arabia and China) among leading recipients that are developing countries. Of that total, Taiwan received $9.8 billion in arms in 1998-2001 and $4.1 billion in 2002-2005. In 2005 alone, Taiwan ranked 6th and received $1.3 billion in arms deliveries, while the PRC ranked 5th and received arms valued at $1.4 billion. As an indication of future arms acquisitions, Taiwan’s arms agreements in 2002- 2005 totaled $4.9 billion. The value of Taiwan’s arms agreements in 2005 alone did not place it among the top ten recipients that are developing countries.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas J. Christensen attempted to soften the blow by saying the U.S. was not against Taiwan resisting PRC pressure, but "Taipei needs to push back intelligently and in a sophisticated manner that plays to its strength." Yet being a democracy is one of Taiwan's principal strengths.Since China "gets provoked" whenever Taiwan exercises its democracy, it follows that any policy that demands that Taiwan stop "provoking" China is essentially a demand that Taiwan stop cultivating its democracy. US policymakers may roll their eyes at a UN entry referendum that uses the name "Taiwan" but if it weren't that, there'd be something equally "provoking." One of the core strategies of the democracy movement for the last three decades has been the construction of a localized political identity, and stroking that identity is a structural feature of Taiwan's politics. This "provocation problem" isn't going to go away.[UPDATE: The Only Redhead and I are channeling the same muse on this one.]