Since Manuel Noriega is in the news, here is what he think about US, and I think all people who care about China, Taiwan, and US relationship should know:

‘History has shown us that the United States does not look for allies but rather subjects; it doesn’t make friends, but rather creates slaves.”

The funny thing was that the administration arrested him is also a Bush administration.

September 11, 2007 @ 9:17 am | Comment

What are your points besides bashing the USA? My wish of wishes is that we would use our market to punish the anti American savages around the world. If Taiwan and China and Japan did not have access to the US market they would perish. America is one of the few countries that, if it wanted, could produce just about everything it consumes. American generosity produced wealth in foreign lands that was only made possible by Americans and their openess and genrosity. Be careful who you suggest is enslaving someone.

September 11, 2007 @ 11:41 am | Comment

Ames, you are sounding unusually loony today. “My wish of wishes is that we would use our market to punish the anti American savages around the world” – well, what can I say?

Raj, I feel like disinfecting the site after you quote an analyst from the Heritage Foundation, where the Cold War is alive and kicking. Yes, I want to see Taiwan remain free and self-governing, but this whole mess wouldn’t exist, or at least it would be lot less radioactive, if Chen hadn’t pushed the envelope with his politically motivated independence campaign, which has served no one well, the Taiwanese certainly least of all.

September 11, 2007 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

Be careful who you suggest is enslaving someone.

Unfortunately, I am an American. Unlike you who probably don’t even know our own history, I am fully aware who is enslaving who.

I am just trying to make a point that I won’t be that surprised that we sold Taiwan out especially if she is causing trouble for us.

Also, critizing our own government is not anti-American, it is true patriotism. As long as you don’t plan to over-thrown it by means of violence, destorying US constitution and rules of law, like someone named Prescott Bush alleged of trying to do.

September 11, 2007 @ 2:36 pm | Comment

It isn’t just Bush’s incompetence and islam-o-facism tunnel vision that is making E. Asia feel neglected, Bush & Co. are well known friends and beholden to US corporations with both arms and a leg invested in China. Too much support for Taiwan (which is far superior to China) and US companies see their licenses “expire”. In a war over Taiwan, US companies will see their assets nationalized, and so will the Japanese just for spite. Those Japanese…

Everyone show find an Amcham member and kick his or her ass.

September 11, 2007 @ 2:52 pm | Comment

Richard

I feel like disinfecting the site after you quote an analyst from the Heritage Foundation, where the Cold War is alive and kicking.

Surely I don’t have to ask you to address the article’s content rather than make snap judgments based on origin?

Yes, I want to see Taiwan remain free and self-governing, but this whole mess wouldn’t exist, or at least it would be lot less radioactive, if Chen hadn’t pushed the envelope with his politically motivated independence campaign, which has served no one well, the Taiwanese certainly least of all.

Richard that is a very simplistic way to address the problem. If anything this whole mess wouldn’t exist (or be a lot less radioactive) if China wasn’t such a terrible bully. Your reaction is a bit like a teacher at school blaming the victim for being attacked. So much better if the kid just does as the bully wants, right?

Of course the situation would be better if the referendum had never happened at all, but then again the same would apply to all the three parties had reacted differently – China and the US can’t get off scott free either. Also remember the KMT has proposed its own referendum that has not helped either – that was motivated by politics as well.

If the US doesn’t want Taiwan to do things like this, as the article suggests Washington needs to engage with it more. Look at North Korea. They hold the region to ransom with nuclear weapons and get a peace conference plus lots of lovely aid. Taiwan wants to hold a peaceful referendum and it gets shat on. Yes, constant talk of independence is neither helpful nor necessary, but the US needs to stop overreacting to curry favour with China when it is China that is clearly in the wrong.

The solution, as per the article, is to sit down and work something out. Taiwan needs to be reassured that the US won’t sell it out. If the US can do that, Taiwan won’t feel the need to assert itself. Currently I think the problem is that the US wants Taiwan to just do as it says whilst Taiwan expects the US to accept its independence without question.

September 11, 2007 @ 3:45 pm | Comment

No doubt the US have let Taiwan down on many occasions. But in this entire UN-related mess, one day I saw good news: China had planned to propose a resolution in the UN saying Taiwan is part of China/the PRC. The US stopped that idea. That resolution of China would have passed, and Taiwan would be in an even more difficult position, if that is possible. At this point, the US did something that helped Taiwan a lot. Unfortunately, no one here in Taiwan seems to have noticed, they are still US-bashing.

September 11, 2007 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

My feelings about the Heritage Foundation aren’t based on a snap judgment, but on years of experience, including my first in-person interview with them in D.C. as a news reporter in (gulp) 1988.

Chicken and egg, I’m afraid. Hard to say which came first, a bullying China or an independence-demanding Green party? We had an imperfect but workable status quo for years. For all its obsessive “back-to-the-motherland” fretting over Taiwan, China did make overtures and Chen politicized every one of them, tossing fuel on the fire unnecessarily. China is a bully, but playing political brinksmanship with them is counter-productive and does little to win over Taiwan’s most important ally, the US.

You write, “Taiwan needs to be reassured that the US won’t sell it out.” Yes. But the US needs to be reassured that Taiwan won’t go out of its way to destabilize the fragile but workable status quo that for all its fault kept the region in peace. And I know about the 50 zillion missiles aimed at Taiwan and I hate it. But is Chen’s posturing the best way to get those missiles dismantled?

September 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm | Comment

Lu

US pressure on China to drop the resolution was commented upon in Taiwan. The problem is that it is still putting pressure on about the referendum. To those Taiwanese that see it as their right (or even a necessity to force China to realise they can’t pressure Taiwan into unifying under the unacceptable “One China, Two Systems” principle) America’s single act is outweighed by its current and continuing actions.

Richard

I didn’t say you had no experience with them. What I was talking about was my hope that you would look at what was being said, rather than just think “Erk – Heritage!”.

What came first? Certainly China was being a bully long before the DPP came to power. Afterwards, Chen did indicate he would agree to talks – the DPP itself even indicated that it would drop its commitment to Taiwanese independence to enable those talks to happen. However, China has always insisted on drawing red lines before such talks, saying that parties must recognise the “one China principle”. But how can the DPP do that? Their core support is based on Taiwanese independence. To agree to the PRC’s “one China” view would be political suicide. That doesn’t mean a compromise can’t be worked out, but China needs to be more flexible rather than cross its arms and pull a face.

Taiwan is also tired, from what I see, of the US’ double-standards. When China passed the Anti-Secession Act, which has done more to destabilise the region than anything else, the US said it was “unhelpful”. When Chen suspended the unification council (whose budget had been slashed by the KMT-controlled legislative and had been doing jack for years), the US threw a big wobbler. This topsy-turvy attitude doesn’t win the US any friends in Taiwan. If the US honestly wants Taiwan to stop rocking the boat, it must respond in exactly the same way every time China bullies, threatens or generally undermines Taiwan. The fact it regularly lets things China does slide or barely protest against it in public does not help the US’ position. Why is Taiwan going to do what the US says if Washington won’t stand up to China when Taiwan is the victim?

As to those missiles, you miss the point. They can’t be “dismantled”, or at least China would never do that. If removed they could be moved back within hours. This is why Taiwan doesn’t believe it should give up anything to get them removed, as there would be no point. If China wants to talk it needs to remove them first, or agree to remove them without Taiwan having to conceed anything it couldn’t later regain.

September 11, 2007 @ 7:57 pm | Comment

I don’t know why anyone takes any of the recent American hand-wringing over the referendum at face value. We really don’t know what is going on, and recent history has shown that what the Bush admin. says publicly about Chen (“We’re shocked! just shocked!”) and what they say privately to Chen are not necessarily the same thing. We can argue over whether that is good or bad, but I wouldn’t automatically take any of this at face value.

September 11, 2007 @ 9:04 pm | Comment

88

Interesting thoughts. However, the problem is that even if the US administration is being more conciliatory in private, the public rebukes are creating anger in Taiwan towards America. That isn’t good for relations, as they’re based on what the people feel not just the politicians.

Also given the recent delays in authorising the sale of the F-16 Block 52 aircraft (which all military commentators agree Taiwan needs), which was expected to be actioned after Taiwan’s 2007 military budget was passed in the summer, that would rather indicate that currently Washington is punishing Taiwan for wanting to hold the referendum.

If the US whinged in public but also agreed to the sale, Taiwan might believe America was putting on a bit of a show. But even if this is a bit of an act, with nothing for Taiwan in it there’s a lot of ill-will being generated at the moment on the island.

September 11, 2007 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

The US won’t sell Taiwan offensive weapons, which Taiwan is wanting dearly. That has pissed of green party people in ROCA and around Taiwan, but Taiwan has developed its own cruise missiles that can reach up to Shanghai and supposedly Beijing and Three Gorges. Other countries have slipped Taiwan technology and training under the table, the IDF with ground and air training and UAV tech, France let itself get bribed into selling older missile ships to Taiwan, etc.

China’s burning hatred of Japan and burning desire to crush a real Chinese type democracy means that Japan has in effect extended its naval coverage to Taiwan. Those O-class subs will make a mess out of those Russian, er, Chinese boats.

Don’t forget, the US just sent Taiwan some very capable destroyers that are about the same design generation as the Sovermeny class ships that the PLAN has and now the US has set up a licensing agreement with unknown EU companies to build AIP boats for sale to Taiwan.

The issue with selling weapons to Taiwan isn’t just about pissing of China, Taiwan is crawling with Chinese spies and reunification lovers who have sent back information about the technology we sell China. We don’t want to sell Taiwan stuff that the PLA can use against the US, just enough to delay the PLA until the fleet arrives.

September 11, 2007 @ 11:27 pm | Comment

Raj,

A few points of pure speculation:

1) How do you entrench people’s positions? Create a bunker mentality. Anti-Americanism isn’t always bad. Just another tool you can use. ‘The US has abandoned us. We are vulnerable. All the more reason we need independence. ‘ What is the goal? To have a referendum or to intensify pro-independence sentiment and make it seem more necessary?

2) Current US policy isn’t predicated on making people like the US. That is obvious at this point. That extends to Taiwan as well. The point is to keep Taiwan from reuniting with the PRC. They don’t have to like us. Taiwan is only important to the US in relation to the PRC.

3) It is more important for the US to appear to the PRC not to be upsetting the status quo, while at the same time actively encouraging a change in the status quo, than to be popular in Taiwan. If the only way you can walk this line is to encourage anti-American sentiment in the short run in Taiwan, so be it.

Anyway, there are many possibilities. You made good points — they may even be more probable than my scenarios. I’m just saying that there are other possibilities here.

September 11, 2007 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

Yes, I want to see Taiwan remain free and self-governing, but this whole mess wouldn’t exist, or at least it would be lot less radioactive, if Chen hadn’t pushed the envelope with his politically motivated independence campaign, which has served no one well, the Taiwanese certainly least of all.

“politically-motivated.” Richard, of course its politically motivated. Gunning for independence is a political act. So is getting elected. What did you think motivated the DPP, scientific advice?

The UN drive is a structural feature of Taiwan’s politics — the KMT did it before the DPP, and the DPP will keep doing it after Chen is gone. Independence activists were talking about entering the UN back in the 1960s. Whatever name is used won’t change this fruitless drive every year.

In fact nothing would have happened if that idiot Ban Ki-moon hadn’t decided to serve Beijing rather than the UN, triggering a bigger mess, and if the US hadn’t overreacted in its usual hamfisted manner, and if Chen had bothered to inform the US about what he was doing. There’s actually nothing going on, since UN entry can’t succeed, and thus, nothing will happen. Hence, it’s much ado…….the real story is the worsening US-Taiwan relations, driven by foul-ups, misunderstandings, and the State Dept’s ill-will.

As for Tkacik being a right winger, I will only say that nothing makes me sob more than the Left’s indifference to China and Taiwan, indeed, the whole of Asia. You guys have left the field to the Rightists, so you get what you deserve: the Right dominates the discourse on Asia, saying all the smart things, while Lefties fret that maybe the US wants a new Cold War. Meanwhile China is already hard at work displacing us….. And let’s not forget, for all that Tkacik is a conservative, he grew up in Taiwan, and for him, at least, it isn’t about fomenting some new Cold War. He really does give a shit about Taiwan, which is more than I can say for almost anyone commenting on the Left.

Michael

September 11, 2007 @ 11:46 pm | Comment

One point: “Taiwan needs to be reassured that the US won’t sell it out.” Yes. But the US needs to be reassured that Taiwan won’t go out of its way to destabilize the fragile but workable status quo that for all its fault kept the region in peace. And I know about the 50 zillion missiles aimed at Taiwan and I hate it. But is Chen’s posturing the best way to get those missiles dismantled?”

Hmmm…. If there were a status quo to be maintained, there would not be missiles pointed at Taiwan, right? Why is the rest of the world dynamic, yet such a vast number of people are convinced that somehow, in the 90 miles between Taiwan and Fujian, nothing changes?

And don’t forget that Chen is posturing to constituents. It is damaging to the US/Taiwan relationship, sure, but he would not be posturing in this way if there were not a large (and increasing) percentage of the population of the country that agrees with him. This also goes back to the status quo. Like it or not, the political leaning of the island has changed since the KMT were in power. Status quo? Hogwash!

September 12, 2007 @ 12:56 am | Comment

Look… what people are missing is that China can’t damage Taiwan-US relation, only Taiwan and US can damage this relationship. On the part of Taiwan, Chen nothing like his predecessor Lee Teng-hui in understanding power. Playing zero-sum game is Chen’s favorite and it is perhaps the only policy he’s capable of running. Chen does not recognize US and China has their own interests outside of the whole Taiwan mess and is actively disturbing and undermining US in that regard. It is no surprise US has more and more disdain for Chen.

If US and Taiwan goes sour China can’t be blamed.

September 12, 2007 @ 1:58 am | Comment

Taiwan is a ship in a stormy sea called China and propelled by a storm called US. The ship needs an astute captain navigating her safely to where ever she needs to go. Precisely where the ship is going I don’t care, as long as the ship remain in one piece.

Chen shui-bien is not that captain. He’s too inept.

September 12, 2007 @ 2:04 am | Comment

If US and Taiwan goes sour China can’t be blamed.

Well actually it could be. China’s bullying is one reason that a referendum like this gets proposed, just as the pressure it puts on Washington to “do something” causes complaints from the US State Department.

The US doesn’t object to what happens in Taiwan out of principle!

—-

By the way, Richard, you would agree with me that the US State Department needs to be more balanced in how it reacts to China and Taiwan upsetting the “status quo” rather than save most of its complaints for the little guy, right?

September 12, 2007 @ 3:07 am | Comment

Independence activists were talking about entering the UN back in the 1960s.

Oh, what should I say? Taiwan was officially seating on the UN security council seat as representative of China in the 1960s. PRC was not recognized as China by most other countries around the world then. It was until 1972 that PRC take back the UN seat and replaced ROC.

September 12, 2007 @ 5:52 am | Comment

Michael, good point about who is talking about Taiwan. If only people from the “right” are talking about it that is the fault of commentators on the rest of the political spectrum.

Besides, I learnt long ago that someone’s politics does not dictate whether they can say something sensible or not.

September 12, 2007 @ 7:17 am | Comment

Find me someone who has no value of somesort, who speaks the exact way that everyone will consider it objective.

If you want absolute objectivity (if it exists) then all you can do is say what happened, you can not suppose or surmise. You cannot infer nor deduce and on and on. So I also think negating someones essays based on what newspaper he works for is really uneducated. It sorta says “I have no ability to judge so I need the masses to judge for me by deciding whether this source is “objective”

Maybe your a “lefty” and hes a “righty” so does that mean that whatever he writes is wrong? or is it only wrong to you based on your own biasness? And doesnt that biasness of yours make him think you are wrong if he is biased as well?

This objectivity, is it real? Being so called neutral in news media for example, does it exist? When it comes to saying what happened, yeah sure, but every editor has a viewpoint and for someone to say that it is wrong because of that is very narrow minded. Maybe Richard you dont agree with the philosophy of so called rightists, but dont be a religious “lefty” and close your mind just because you are conditioned by your false notion of objectivity.

September 12, 2007 @ 8:56 am | Comment

I guess America is afraid that China will start a huge war. O ther than this threat, I dont know why the US is so submissive to such a disgusting regime.

As for the status quo of having China toy with Taiwan by showing off that it controls the world against Taiwan, well, that is really not acceptable. If China can control the world to be unsupportive of Taiwan, what next?(what else?) What if China doesnt want anyone to buy anything from Japan next? Or some place less affluent like say Indonesia or something? Do you think that if now lets say Indonesia boycotted the Olympics due to Chinas human rights problems, do you think that China would control everyone to do things increasingly against them? Of course they would. Thats how they stamp out “subversion” and “dissidence”.

Taiwan doesn’t like the CCP, Falun Gong doesnt like the CCP, Human rights activists dont like the CCP, anyone who doesnt like the CCP, the CCP will control the world against them. Thats the problem.

Maybe the status quo feels fine in some peoples lives, but for me, I dont lie the fact that such an evil regime is coercing other countries’ leadership on many fronts.

September 12, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Comment

Published: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
An Opportunity for Wall St. in China’s Surveillance Boom
KEITH BRADSHER
http://www.theledger.com/article/20070911/ZNYT01/709110479/1001/BUSINESS

Wall Street analysts now follow the growth of companies that install
surveillance systems providing Chinese police stations with 24-hour video feeds
from nearby Internet cafes. Hedge fund money from the United States has paid
for the development of not just better video cameras, but face-recognition
software and even newer behavior-recognition software designed to spot the
beginnings of a street protest and notify police.

Now, the ties between China’s surveillance sector and American capital markets
are starting to draw Washington’s attention.

Rep. Tom Lantos, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, said he was disturbed by a recent report in The New York
Times about the development of surveillance systems in China by another
company, China Public Security Technology, which, like China Security and
Surveillance, incorporated itself in the United States to make it easier to
sell shares to Western investors.

Mr. Lantos called American involvement in the Chinese surveillance industry “an
absolutely incredible phenomenon of extreme corporate irresponsibility.”

He said he planned to broaden an existing investigation into “the cooperation
of American companies in the Chinese police state.”

September 12, 2007 @ 11:31 am | Comment

“…Other than this threat, I dont know why the US is so submissive to such a disgusting regime…. ”

No.. it merely shows you are ignorant, no better than most of the US politicians who are equally ignorant of this issue. You need to read more, son! Wikipedia is a good start. Google is your friend.

If you don’t know something, take upon yourself to find out why. The US policy did not exist for no good reason.

September 12, 2007 @ 3:38 pm | Comment

The US policy did not exist for no good reason.

So by your logic that would justify the US-led invasion of Iraq, right?

September 12, 2007 @ 5:40 pm | Comment

I dont know why the US is so submissive to such a disgusting regime.

The U.S is not submissive to disgusting regimes. They own plenty of them, back plenty of them, and cooperate with them in the case of China. It isn’t a mistake that 300 million “free and democratic” people are cooperating with Saudi Arabia and the CCP. Either they don’t believe in freedom and democracy or they’re the biggest fucking morons in the universe. The second isn’t true, of course.

America could produce enough hams and buckets of grease to burst as many arteries as she wanted, alright. But for the rest? Not even every single person strapped down in a sweatshop could produce the excess that America wants and buys (not need). It’s not generosity, is traitorous, suicidal businessmen pushing materialism and wasted incentives on the populace for their own benefit.

Give me a break. China, Taiwan and Japan would do just fine regardless of whether or not the U.S allowed market access. It only makes growth a lot easier and faster, and meanwhile makes it easier for American citizens to afford necessities like Xboxes and iPods. The savings can go towards your next European sports car, pair of Oakley’s, 10,000$ designer bags for your wife, and various other essentials.

September 12, 2007 @ 9:41 pm | Comment

“So by your logic that would justify the US-led invasion of Iraq, right?”

Ya perhaps if you are a simpleton that likes to stay ignorant you’ll reach that conclusion. However it merely takes like couple minutes of googling to find out the “why” of stuff first b4 trying to jump into the spin game.

The guy says he doesn’t understand why US have this policy on Taiwan. Perhaps he should read up an Wikipedia article or two!!

Look… I am tired of some random guy mouthing of some irrelevant elementary stuff, grandstanding, when it clearly demonstrate the person simply has not read up enough. The whole Taiwan strait encompasses perhaps hundreds years of history, much of it disputed, and affects the future of the international system. To have some random noob that comes around throwing a one liners is very infuriating.

September 13, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

Ya perhaps if you are a simpleton that likes to stay ignorant you’ll reach that conclusion.

You have a serious attitude problem. You complain about what others say yet you are derogatory and immature yourself.

The guy says he doesn’t understand why US have this policy on Taiwan. Perhaps he should read up an Wikipedia article or two!!

I don’t think anyone who can credibly claim to know much about US foreign policy would suggest someone read Wikipedia. For technical articles it can be useful, but rarely for politics and the like.

To have some random noob that comes around throwing a one liners is very infuriating.

“Noob”? How old are you – 13?

snow makes some good points sometimes, much more than I see from you – he made a reasonably-long post, rather than a one-liner.

I suggest you put down your computer games and do some growing up before you try talking with the adults.

September 13, 2007 @ 7:34 pm | Comment