Taiwan threatens Independence

[Usurper83]

I don't have a link. My buddy works for Factiva, and just emails me things directly. Apologies.

China warns Taiwan on perceived independence move
497 words
26 September 2006
23:37
Reuters News
English
(c) 2006 Reuters Limited
(Adds details)

BEIJING, Sept 27 (Reuters) - China blasted Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian on Wednesday for a plan to change the constitution and rename the island, moves Beijing would consider a formal declaration of independence of territory it claims as its own.

Chen's ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is studying constitutional changes to name the island the "Republic of Taiwan", instead of "Republic of China", and redefine its national territory.

Party members may introduce legislation next month.

"We will never tolerate their seeking de jure independence by amending the constitution," said Li Weiyi, spokesman for China's policy-making Taiwan Affairs Office.

"We will closely watch and be on high alert to new developments," he added, calling Chen's plan a "splittist" and "base" act that would threaten peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits and in the Asia-Pacific region.

"It once again demonstrates that he has never had credibility and his political personality has completely gone bankrupt," Li told a regular news conference.

Beijing, which considers the island a breakaway province, has vowed to attack if it declares formal independence. The two sides have faced off since China's defeated Nationalist forces fled to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949.

WASHINGTON WARNING

Taiwan still officially styles itself the Republic of China and claims sovereignty over mainland China in its constitution.

But Chen's DPP, which ended more than 50 years of Nationalist rule on the island in 2000, has frequently upset Beijing by advocating a Taiwan identity separate from China and pushing to "re-engineer" what it sees as an anachronistic constitution.

The United States, which recognises Beijing's "one China" policy, warned Chen on Monday against seeking the changes.

"The United States does not support independence for Taiwan, and we continue to be opposed to unilateral changes in the status quo by either side," State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.

"We also take very seriously President Chen's repeated commitments not to permit the constitutional reform process to touch on sovereignty issues, which includes territorial definition ... we expect him to carry out those commitments."

Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, but is obliged by the Taiwan Relations Act to defend the island.

Taiwan media on Wednesday quoted Chen's office as saying the proposed changes would not violate his previous commitments.

Li, the Chinese spokesman, said Chen's move was intended for personal gain amid mounting pressure in Taiwan, where protesters across the island have called for him to step down in recent weeks over allegations of corruption.

Opposition lawmakers presented their second motion to oust Chen in three months on Tuesday, though the chance of success was remote as they lack a two-thirds majority in parliament.

CHINA-TAIWAN (UPDATE 1)|LANGEN|AFA|CSA|LBY|RWSA|RWS|REULB|GNS|RNA|G|RBN |Z|ABN|M|E|D|RNP|DNP|PGE

Document LBA0000020060927e29r0004l


Just some points of interest. We don't support Taiwanese independence, but we're bound by pact to protect them if China invades. Last summer I spoke about how if China and Taiwan break into Civil War (really Taiwan declaring independence) we'd almost be bound by pact to join the war, because Japan would enter, then we would becase we have Japan's back, and then that might spark up WWIII. I'm not all about doomsaying and all that, but just something of interest to me.

[Gan]

Here's the link to the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/china.taiwan.reut/index.html

[Drew]

Just some points of interest. We don't support Taiwanese independence, but we're bound by pact to protect them if China invades.



We do support Taiwan, just not officially. We agree to the one China policy (which really is China and Taiwan, it just lets China pretend it's not) because we don't want to piss off our trading partner. If it hits the fan no one thinks we'll be siding with China.

[Sean of the Thread]

I bet we side with China.

[TheEschaton]

I bet we side with China too.

[Artha]

It'd be pretty cool if we played the Neutrality card.

[Gan]

Alliances, tricky things that they are. They played an interesting part in the earlier world wars. And although I think we have lessons learned, I think we would side with China diplomatically. If an all out attack were to occur, then my bet is on Taiwan.

[Usurper83]

We do support Taiwan, just not officially. We agree to the one China policy (which really is China and Taiwan, it just lets China pretend it's not) because we don't want to piss off our trading partner. If it hits the fan no one thinks we'll be siding with China.

Well, I agree with the first statement, and that much was contained in my points of interest quote.

Officially we can't, and don't.. but I know for damn sure that we'd be put between a rock and a hard spot if this was to ever get hostile. Japan would instantly run to Taiwan's side, and then we would have them asking us for help. It could be the precursor to WWIII and get all out of hand and whatnot, but again, I'm not trying to be a doomsayer over here.

It's a tough call. I would like to think that we would stand up for democratic ideals and side with Taiwan against Red China, but at the same time, with us being over in the Middle East as heavy as we are, could we risk an open war with China?

Neutrality in this issue would be cool, but I doubt we'd play that card. It makes sense economically to side with China. It makes sense, also, to side with Taiwan ideally. Who knows. Hopefully Taiwan has the smarts and doesn't declare independence, because they'd get overrun either way we look at it. We don't have a force big enough in that part of the world to keep Red China from stomping on them, so then we'd have to invade Taiwan.

[/speculative ramble]

I should probably get back to work.

[Gan]

Interestingly enough.


Taiwan's Imports:
11.6% of all imports into Taiwan come from the US.
11% from China
25.3% from JapanTaiwan's Exports:
16.22% to US
21.6% to China
7.7% to JapanUS Imports (with regards to China/Taiwan)
15% of overall US imports come from China
<1% from TaiwanUS Exports (with regards to China/Taiwan)
4.6% to China
<1% to TaiwanEconomically speaking, it doesnt even make sense for Taiwan to piss off China since it has 21.6% of all its exports going into mainland China. Seeing that cut off would be a major monetary handicap. And even with the trade imbalance the US has with China, 4.6% of overall US exports going to China signifies real money in terms of American Jobs that would have to be lost/redirected should that trade relationship go sour.

Conversely, the US represents a trading partner to mainland China at the tune of 21.4% of overall Chinese exports. I imagine this is also understood by the Chinese government and represents a pretty big bargaining chip the US has at the negotiations table.

The hard part is determining which is more valuable and at what given time? Does the US attempt to defend a democratic government, even if it doesnt 'officially' recognize it? Will the US be pulled into a conflict should the Japenese decide that defending Taiwan against a physical attack is something they want to do? And does the US want to enjoin yet into another international conflict with comittments already in place in North Korea, Iraq, and Afghanastan? Although I think the force comittment would be more naval/aerial (7th fleet type) than ground forces.

Source:
These are 2005 numbers from the CIA Factbook website.

[Some Rogue]

You think China wants to get into a war with it's top 2 trading partners though? I think if push came to shove, they'd back down first.

Edit: Damn, beaten by Ganalon.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I think America could use this as excellent leverage to get it's way with China, should they choose to side with them.. such as fixing the trade imbalance, etc.

Not that we'd do it.

[Usurper83]

I think America could use this as excellent leverage to get it's way with China, should they choose to side with them.. such as fixing the trade imbalance, etc.

Not that we'd do it.


That's a good theory. I don't think it'd happen, either. China's a pretty smart country, economically speaking. I'm not sure they'd risk open war with us either.

Then again, if we go to war with China, I suppose a crapload of manufacturing jobs will open up again in the US, and we'd be spending more on pencils.

[Stanley Burrell]

I very, very much hope diplomacy from a third neutrally-perceived Asiatic nation can intervene.

The U.S. must not intercede and be as apart from PR, where it occurs, as is possible.

[Drew]

None of you has mentioned an extremely key element here. China has over near 1 trillion in US debts and liabilities. Mostly in t-bills. China uses this as a very effective weapon because if they were ever to call it they would effectively destroy our economy.

If China and Taiwan go to war the US sides with Taiwan no matter what, no matter who the President is, because we can absolve ourselves completely of that debt. Mark my words, if it ever happens under a Republican president the left will say that we did it for that very reason, just like we fought in Iraq for all that oil flowing into our ports...

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

None of you has mentioned an extremely key element here. China has over near 1 trillion in US debts and liabilities. Mostly in t-bills. China uses this as a very effective weapon because if they were ever to call it they would effectively destroy our economy.

If China and Taiwan go to war the US sides with Taiwan no matter what, no matter who the President is, because we can absolve ourselves completely of that debt. Mark my words, if it ever happens under a Republican president the left will say that we did it for that very reason, just like we fought in Iraq for all that oil flowing into our ports...

AS much as I don't think we're in Iraq for the right reasons, upon reviewing the events going on before and during this war I don't think we're in there for oil. Other countries offered us a shit load of oil to not go into Iraq (namely Russia I believe) but we went anyway.. there are other countries with far more Oil as well (Like the Sudan) that we'd have a better "excuse" to go into.

My hypothesis (and it's just that, not saying it's right just something that seems most likely in my mind) is that we're in Iraq to draw out the Extremists to one place.. sort of like bait, so that the war would be easier to fight.. at least in Iraq there's a sort of front-line, even if the front-line is an entire country. The only reason I think it wasn't approached this way by Bush was because the World would have had a shit fit if Bush admitted to endangering millions of innocent lives just to sniff out terrorists.

Once again, I could be totally wrong.. and I'd rather not turn this into a Bush hating/Iraq War discussion, so that'll be the end of my off-topic debate. If you disagree feel free to post and I'll take it into consideration, I'll just respond in a PM if I have a response.

[Gan]

I agree ^^ with your observation considering that I heard a news report yesterday saying that Iraqi oil production is still nowhere near pre-invasion levels, which falls in line with what you are thinking about oil not being the reason for the 'war for oil' theory that has been floated by in the past.

[Gan]

To follow up on Drew's post a little.

In February of 2006 Fed Chairman Bernanke was not overly concerned that China, which as of 2005 numbers held $820 billion in US debt assetts, would use that as a tool to derail the US economy. If China were to dump all of its bond holdings, it would cause our interest rates to rise, only to see RMB (remnibi) rise against the US Dollar, resulting in higher costs for China's own goods and services (inflation). In fact, the latest school of thought is that the sole reason why China is investing heavily in US securities is to keep the RMB from appreciating on its normal track. (This is the effect that a communist control over a government market/exchange has, instead of letting the market find its own equilibrium for currency value.) This peg against the US dollar has helped Chinese exports exceed previous levels (325 billion in 2002 vs. over 900 billion estimated for 2006).

Intreestingly enough, one characteristic of China's finished goods exports is that a large portion involve imported materials, thus there is a cost on the front end to such a growth in exports, which makes China's exposure to global markets that much greater.

Japan was the largest holder of US debt as of the time of Bernanke's statement to the tune of ~830 billion.



Bernanke argued that an abrupt sale of U.S. debt securities by the Chinese would be "very much against their own interests.” He said that they are holding U.S. debt "not because they want to be nice to us" but because they appreciate the debt that is traded in "deep, liquid and safe financial markets."
The fears of China dumping all of its US securities on the market in order to destabilize the US economy, while validated, are not realistic due to the impact that it will have on its own economy. Especially long term, because the US markets are self regulating and will correct into equilibrium whereas China's economy/markets are manipulated by the government and usually pegged against other foreign currencies for advantageous short run positions.