|
Biden Admin Perpetrates Small Act Of Diplomacy
Via Antiwar I came to a recent piece by Ted Schneider
U.S.-China Policy Is Not Going According to Plan – Libertarian Institute, Jan 25 2024
On January 13, the Taiwanese returned the Democratic Progressive Party and its new leader, Lai Ching-te, to power. Lai’s winning campaign had a platform of promoting a separate identity for Taiwan and rejecting China’s territorial claims.
However, the election may not reflect the simple mandate the West projects onto Taiwan, of turning away from China and running into the arms of America.
In her new book, Russia, China and the West in the Post-Cold War Era, Suzanne Loftus cites 2021 polling that shows that only 38% of Taiwanese want independence from China. 50% support the status quo of no unification and no independence and a further 5% prefer unification with China. Recent surveys have found as high as 91.4% support for the status quo, even while 78.4% believe that Taiwan and China are not the same country.
Those are valid and well researched points.
However further down I found this paragraph which contradicted my state of knowledge:
At the close of 2023, U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in San Francisco to attempt to deescalate the rising tension between the two countries. Chinese officials asked Biden to make a clear, public statement after he met Xi, affirming that the United States does not support Taiwanese independence and does support China’s goal of a peaceful unification with Taiwan. “The White House,” NBC reports, “rejected the Chinese request.”
Unfortunately the NBC piece linked above is full of spin, out of date and no longer factual.
Xi warned Biden during summit that Beijing will reunify Taiwan with China – NBCNews, Dec 20 2023
Chinese President Xi Jinping bluntly told President Joe Biden during their recent summit in San Francisco that Beijing will reunify Taiwan with mainland China but that the timing has not yet been decided, according to three current and former U.S. officials.
…
Chinese officials also asked in advance of the summit that Biden make a public statement after the meeting saying that the U.S. supports China’s goal of peaceful unification with Taiwan and does not support Taiwanese independence, they said. The White House rejected the Chinese request.
NBCNews make it look as if the Biden administration completely rejected to make a statement against Taiwan’s independence. But that is not the case. The dispute, if there was one at all, was only about the timing.
The administration did not want to make the statement immediately after the summit as its preferred party in the upcoming election in Taiwan would have lost points over it.
So instead of delivering the requested statement upfront it asked the Chinese delegates to allow for a later timing. The Chinese seem to have agreed to that.
Just hours after the election in Taiwan was over, President Biden delivered the statement the Chinese had asked for:
Biden: US does not support Taiwan independence – Reuters, Jan 13, 2024
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Joe Biden said on Saturday the United States does not support the independence of Taiwan, after Taiwanese voters rebuffed China and gave the ruling party a third presidential term.
Earlier in the day, the Taiwanese ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential candidate Lai Ching-te came to power, strongly rejecting Chinese pressure to spurn him, and pledged both to stand up to Beijing and seek talks.
“We do not support independence…” Biden said, when asked for reaction to Saturday’s elections.
The whole story is a rare sign of deft diplomacy.
The Chinese requested a statement from Biden. The administration agreed with it but asked for a delay and explained its reasons for doing so. The Chinese understood those reasons and agreed to wait. After the election in Taiwan was over the Biden administration immediately delivered on his promise.
Had Biden not fulfilled the demand we would likely have seen a rather harsh response from Beijing.
But the hawks were held back and Biden delivered. This will give the Chinese some confidence that other promises made to them will also be fulfilled.
Trust building is a necessary element of diplomacy. It is good to see that U.S. has not yet forgotten that lesson.
It should now do the same with regards to Russia.
@d dan | Jan 27 2024 0:01 utc | 36
Look. The problem is simple.
We know without any doubt that Chinese people inhabitated the little Pescadores islands, because there is a full XVI century temple there.
We know without any doubt that the Dutch colonised Taiwan, because there is a whole Dutch fort there, also the remnants of another one, and a third one, too.
Now where are all the Chinese temples, forts, administrative buildings, required for managing a territory as vast as Formosa?
Yeah, all in your dreams.
—
About woke history.
The indigenous people in Taiwan were just earlier batches of migrants from the mainland China.
Maybe, but they were not Chinese by any mean. It would be like calling “Turks” the ancient Hittites.
By the way, I was always sure that the Jews could have their will in Palestine, because the world is full of people reasoning like that.
[D]uring the time of the Three Kingdom (220 to 280 AD), the king of Wu (one of the three kingdom) sent his generals 卫温 and 诸葛直 with ten thousand soldiers to Taiwan.
Not to Taiwan, but to some Yizhou or I-chou island, which could be or could be not modern day Taiwan. In any case they all, at least those who survived, came back.
This was the world earliest recorded words about Taiwan, and shows that China has effective government control of the island about 1,800 years ago. In late 6th century, Su emperor sent emissary to Taiwan three times. From late Tang to Song, large number of Han migrated to Taiwan to escape from the wars in the mainland.
Again, all those records refer to some island (using a plethora of different names) to the east, which may be or may be not Taiwan. Most probably they were confusing the Pescadores islands, the Ryukyu islands and Taiwan. Anyway some of those Han probably fled to the Pescadores, where there are traces of them, maybe to the Ryukyu, where there are some traces of them, but not to Taiwan, where there are not the flimsiest traces of them and there could be not traces of them since Formosa was inhabitated by aggressive headhunters tribes.
Han migrants did NOT genocide, exploit nor replace the Taiwanese indigenous people into minority or poverty
The KMT rule over the island has been shameful, especially toward the natives.
—
About the problems of seafaring in the ancient Taiwan strait: https://manifold.uhpress.hawaii.edu/read/7734e8a1-1db7-428d-a12d-2d39a1d1f5a7/section/6585b02f-f973-4821-b12c-0cd36db0955c .
Posted by: SG | Jan 27 2024 12:57 utc | 37
@d dan | Jan 28 2024 20:24 utc | 57
You are displaying very poor knowledge of Chinese people. Look at the distribution of 高山族, one of the indigenous group in Taiwan. There are many who are staying in mainland since thousands of years ago like their ancestor. Are you claiming they are not Chinese? I can go on to talk about many other indigenous groups too.
“>https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%AB%98%E5%B1%B1%E6%97%8F%E7%BE%A4
Read the very wikipedia article you linked there: it says that (1) 高山族 is not “one of the indigenous group in Taiwan”, but an umbrella term for all the indigenous people of Taiwan in the PRC, (2) all the 4,000 or so Formosan natives in mainland China emigrated there from Taiwan, so the idea that they “are staying in mainland since thousands of years ago like their ancestor” is complete nonsense, made up by you. Their ancestors left continental Asia, thousands of years ago: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E5%B3%B6%E8%AA%9E%E7%B3%BB .
You probably do not even know what an Austranesian was before engaging this discussion.
—
@d dan | Jan 28 2024 20:24 utc | 57
No, you didn’t specify “before the arrival of Dutch.”
Wait, what?
There were not significant Chinese settlements on the island before the XVII century, when Dutch colonists encouraged Chinese immigration
SG | Jan 26 2024 17:16 utc | 21
OK, then name one Chinese city founded in Taiwan before the establishment of the Dutch and Spanish possessions over the island.
SG | Jan 26 2024 20:51 utc | 28
While there certainly were Chinese people in the Pescadores islands, the historical records of a stable Chinese presence in Taiwan proper, before the establishment of the Dutch colony, is flimsy.
SG | Jan 26 2024 23:21 utc | 34
—
You know Chinese prefer wooden material for construction, so most structure before Ming had been destroyed.
No! Read the discussion.
Look. The problem is simple.
We know without any doubt that Chinese people inhabitated the little Pescadores islands, because there is a full XVI century temple there.
We know without any doubt that the Dutch colonised Taiwan, because there is a whole Dutch fort there, also the remnants of another one, and a third one, too.
Now where are all the Chinese temples, forts, administrative buildings, required for managing a territory as vast as Formosa?
Yeah, all in your dreams.
SG | Jan 27 2024 12:57 utc | 37
—
But even if all those historical text are fake, so what? It is beyond dispute that China has continuously asserted control over Taiwan since the early 1600’s (except during the 50 years Japanese rule). That alone is a stronger claim over Taiwan than Europeans occupation of North America, South America, Australia, Hawaii, or Japanese occupation of Ryushu.
No, Taiwan was claimed by the Qing empire in 1684, while the kingdom of Ryukyu became vassal of the domain of Satsuma in 1609.
And this is the point of my discussion: the Japanese claim over Ryukyu is obviously far stronger than the Chinese one over Taiwan.
—
@KitaySupporter | Jan 29 2024 3:28 utc | 58
You don’t read, just blabber.
I trust more Chinese written history than your ignorant assertions which are meaningless and weightless.
As I said before, you are an example of woke neoliberal herd mentality.
You said that China established control over Taiwan during the Yuan dinasty, I asked you where was the evidence.
Since there is none, you came up with the moronic analogy between Taiwan and the USA.
Since I pointed how moronic that was, you came up with the totally woke, pseudo-post-modernist propaganda that history is just narrative.
Since I pointed out that not all narratives are the same, you resorted to childish tantrum.
Posted by: SG | Jan 29 2024 10:19 utc | 59
Posted by: SG | Jan 29 2024 10:19 utc | 59
“高山族” -SG
You are right 高山族 is not “one of the indigenous group in Taiwan.” I should type “阿美族” instead. But “高山族” was originally used by ROC, not PRC.
“the idea that they “are staying in mainland since thousands of years ago like their ancestor” is complete nonsense, made up by you” -SG
It is not just the 4,000 people. You have repeatedly ignored my evidences (historical writings, DNA, linguistic…) that link the Taiwanese indigenous to many peoples in southern China. But even if we would just restrict to the 4,000 self-identified 高山族, they also has settled in mainland for at least hundreds of years. So, I would ask one more time: are they Chinese or not?
“You probably do not even know what an Austranesian was before engaging this discussion.” -SG
Talk for yourself. “Austronesian” is a western term. I have already provided link to show that ALL “Austronesian” came from mainland.
“No! Read the discussion.” -SG
You first stated “the historical records … before the establishment of the Dutch colony, is flimsy” (Jan 26 2024 23:21 utc | 34), which I countered by providing plenty of historical texts and links. Later then you asked where are “the Chinese temples, forts, administrative buildings” (Jan 27 2024 12:57 utc | 37), which I provided again. You claimed ancient Chinese travelled to “Yizhou or I-chou island”, not Taiwan, which were the old name they used for Taiwan. You then arrogantly asserted that Chinese didn’t know how to navigate and confused the various islands to the East, which I also proved you wrong. Your points have been refuted again and again: those are the “discussion.”
So now, if you want to invent your own artificial standard, arbitrary evidences (only “buildings”, no historical text, no DNA tracing or anything else), and self-serving random timing (“before Dutch colonization”) to refute China’s claim on Taiwan, then at least be consistent. Please find buildings before 1600’s in every province of China. Or are you disputing China’s claim on 吉林, 云南, 青海, etc as well? Also, please find similar buildings in North America, Australia, or Ryukyu and every parts of the world, built by current claimants before 1600’s. Otherwise, you are not only an hypocrite, but just like a silly 5-years old kid throwing tantrum.
“kingdom of Ryukyu became vassal of the domain of Satsuma in 1609” -SG
I see, some Japanese revisionist history. Ryukyu was the tributary state of China since 1300’s. The invasion of 萨摩藩 didn’t change that relation. Neither China nor Ryukyu recognized that it was a “vassal state” of 萨摩藩. A trivial factoid for you: as late as 1800’s, when confronted by U.S. about Ryukyu, Japan admitted it was part of Qing and redirected US delegate to Beijing.
Historically, Ryukyu natives (again, came from mainland) has more cultural, DNA, linguistic, economic links to China than Japan. Even the name Ryukyu was honorarily granted by Chinese emperor. Japan didn’t, and still doesn’t export much good or useful things, except wars and violence.
But if Japan insists on destroying the post-WW2 order restricting its territory to the 4 islands, and yet want to challenge China’s claim on Taiwan, then China should reciprocate too. China would work with Russia to get Hokkaido, in additional to Ryukyu, independence. Good luck relying on the “United” States to save Japan.
Posted by: d dan | Jan 29 2024 23:56 utc | 60
|
