NationStates Jolt Archive

4.20.2006

President Bush, in a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, stated, "I do not support independence for Taiwan."

China is a communist state while Taiwan is a multiparty democracy.

President Bush made his astounding statement in the White House today.
:confused: :eek: :headbang: he's done it again...

You misunderestimate the power of the Bush side.

You misunderestimate the power of the Bush side.
is that the dark side of the force? :D

Link please?

Need more details really.. things aren't always as they seem.

The answer is to not speak at all and provide Taiwan with lots of arms. It has worked for a very long time. Maybe with the war in Iraq the United States can't sustain providing Taiwan with arms...

China is a capitalist state posing as a communist one. Anybody with half a brain can see that.

China is not a free society, they are an ideological controlled state, but economically free market. In the strict sense they are a mixed economy.

Link please?
Yes sir. :D (this is actually old news which I hadn't heard about but seems to come back to haunt the Bush administration time and time again)

The original source (doesn't say anything else) (http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/04/bush-sides-with-communist-state.html)
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105239,00.html)
China Daily (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/09/content_449778.htm)
Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-31-04.html)
Boston News (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/12/12/china_applauds_bush_stance_against_taiwan_independence/)
Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,107642,00.html)

China is not a free society, they are an ideological controlled state, but economically free market. In the strict sense they are a mixed economy.

Well, they have been flooding the open market with made in China goods for quite some time now. But still, one-party state over multi-party democracy? I'd like to see the source so I can read the entire article, please.

EDIT: Thanks for the linky.

China's claim to Taiwan is so weak as to be laughable. Hell, Germany had a better justification for annexing the Sudetenland than China has for annexing Taiwan.

Yes sir. :D (this is actually old news which I hadn't heard about but seems to come back to haunt the Bush administration time and time again)

The original source (doesn't say anything else) (http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/04/bush-sides-with-communist-state.html)
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105239,00.html)
China Daily (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/09/content_449778.htm)
Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-31-04.html)
Boston News (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/12/12/china_applauds_bush_stance_against_taiwan_independence/)
Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,107642,00.html)


Thats yes ma'am! :D

Who cares? Clinton had the same policy. If you hate bush for this hate clinton to.

And before someone says that my sources are unreliable, take it from the White House, no middle man involved.

Source here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060420.html)

Thats yes ma'am! :D

Who cares? Clinton had the same policy. If you hate bush for this hate clinton to.
Oooops... Yes ma'am :D

Well... I don't hate them... I pity them...

Who cares? Clinton had the same policy. If you hate bush for this hate clinton to.

Well, I do. Clinton was as bad an appeaser as Bush and neither deserve praise for caving in to foreign bullying.

is that the dark side of the force? :D
No, just the dumbass side. I believe China might just be the worst country in the world right now. It's the worst of both systems.

The supression and sameness of the Communist Model, combined with the Exploitation and inhumanity of an extreme Capitalist Model.

No, just the dumbass side. I believe China might just be the worst country in the world right now.

We'll see in a few years when India blows past them economically. China's "economic miracle" is increasingly a lie built on oppression and exploitation, and it will not survive for much longer.

Thats yes ma'am! :D

Who cares? Clinton had the same policy. If you hate bush for this hate clinton to.

You know, for a political ideology that loathes Clinton, you sure do use him as a justification for a whole bunch of things.

Bush does all the bad shit Clinton did (except for having sexual relations with that woman,) plus all of his own crappy shit.

And still, Clinton was a better administrator and a better diplomat (we were a whole hell of a lot more popular when he was around.)

Does anyone know how long Taiwan has been (at least politically) independent for? I'm actually a bit ignorant of Taiwan's nation status but, as far as I can remember, China has been out for very long, no? Am I wrong?

Does anyone know how long Taiwan has been (at least politically) independent for? I'm actually a bit ignorant of Taiwan's nation status but, as far as I can remember, China has been out for very long, no? Am I wrong?

It was ceded from China to Japan in 1895 and then gained full independence from Japan in 1945. The PRC government had almost no presence on the island at any time in its history.

Taiwan, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan)

We'll see in a few years when India blows past them economically. China's "economic miracle" is increasingly a lie built on oppression and exploitation, and it will not survive for much longer.
I hope you are not underestimating the fact that they are still a one-party country. It certainly gives China some leverage, unless there was a revolution (can't imagine it happening, from what I hear from chinese people abroad)...

I hope you are not underestimating the fact that they are still a one-party country. It certainly gives China some leverage, unless there was a revolution (can't imagine it happening, from what I hear from chinese people abroad)...

A democratic country always has advantages over a one-party state. India has less corruption, more open markets, and greater freedom than China which means companies can operate more freely. That makes it more attractive to invest there and makes investments safer.

The one party state breeds appalling corruption and incompetence, both of which make the situation very difficult to operate in. Plus, China's economic data is so falsified that it is hard to tell what is really going on most of the time; we know, however, that they are increasingly awash in high-risk debt, are building massive overcapacity in their industries, and are facing severe deflation and rural unemployment.

It was ceded from China to Japan in 1895 and then gained full independence from Japan in 1945. The PRC government had almost no presence on the island at any time in its history.

Taiwan, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan)
Thanks Vetalia... How a western government can oppose to its independence is beyond me, particularly the US... Smells like serious financial trouble is coming out of the Bush Administration...

A democratic country always has advantages over a one-party state. India has less corruption, more open markets, and greater freedom than China which means companies can operate more freely. That makes it more attractive to invest there and makes investments safer.

The one party state breeds appalling corruption and incompetence, both of which make the situation very difficult to operate in. Plus, China's economic data is so falsified that it is hard to tell what is really going on most of the time; we know, however, that they are increasingly awash in high-risk debt, are building massive overcapacity in their industries, and are facing severe deflation and rural unemployment.
All you said sounds true... thing is, does a country like China need foreign investment as much as India does? I get the feeling they are exporting a lot as it is...

Thanks Vetalia... How a western government can oppose to its independence is beyond me, particularly the US... Smells like serious financial trouble is coming out of the Bush Administration...

We've got each other by the balls. They own a huge chunk of our debt and help keep the dollar afloat, and we provide them with billions in investment and loans and are their dominant trading partner. A wrong move by either nation could bring both down.

Really, the turning point was in 1998 when the trade deficit really began to swell. It only got worse as the Bush Administration spent like wild and ran up our debt with China...fortunately, the deficit is falling but they still have nearly $1 trillion in bonds, enough to inflict an Argentine-style collapse in the dollar.

A democratic country always has advantages over a one-party state.

Sure, in human rights and standard of living. But just ask the Egyptians how well a single party rulership can motivate a populace to create wonders (for a good while, at least.)


India has less corruption, more open markets, and greater freedom than China which means companies can operate more freely. That makes it more attractive to invest there and makes investments safer.

That's still and overly simplistic way at looking at things. I mean, look how effective the Nazis were at dragging Germany from hyper-inflation and depression into a world power.

The one party state breeds appalling corruption and incompetence, both of which make the situation very difficult to operate in.

Yeah. That's why the Republicans controlling all 3 branches AND expanding executive powers is such a sucky thing.

Plus, China's economic data is so falsified that it is hard to tell what is really going on most of the time; we know, however, that they are increasingly awash in high-risk debt, are building massive overcapacity in their industries, and are facing severe deflation and rural unemployment.

Yeah, nothing like that would ever happen here in America. :rolleyes: Well, except for the deflation part.

All you said sounds true... thing is, does a country like China need foreign investment as much as India does? I get the feeling they are exporting a lot as it is...

The exports are what make them dependent on investment. China's economy is extremely overleveraged towards exports, and they need to keep attracting billions in trade and investment in order to keep that sector healthy. They also lack domestic innovation because it is stifled by the tight controls on the state; that makes them even more dependent on foreign investment to keep their economy modern and productivity growing. Without foreign investment, they'd be quite similar to North Korea technologically.

Also, India's investments are mainly in infrastructure (roads, power, sewer, etc) to support economic growth, not the source of growth. Their economy is much more healthy, with a balance between domestic consumption, imports and exports. They also have a lot of homegrown talent and innovation; for all of the talk about outsourcing to India, we forget that the majority of Indian IT hiring comes from Indian companies rather than outsourcing.

We've got each other by the balls. They own a huge chunk of our debt and help keep the dollar afloat, and we provide them with billions in investment and loans and are their dominant trading partner. A wrong move by either nation could bring both down.

Really, the turning point was in 1998 when the trade deficit really began to swell. It only got worse as the Bush Administration spent like wild and ran up our debt with China...fortunately, the deficit is falling but they still have nearly $1 trillion in bonds, enough to inflict an Argentine-style collapse in the dollar.
Damn... that sounds like a long-term marriage between a creationist and a Darwinian evolutionist, metaphorically speaking of course...

You know, for a political ideology that loathes Clinton, you sure do use him as a justification for a whole bunch of things.

Bush does all the bad shit Clinton did (except for having sexual relations with that woman,) plus all of his own crappy shit.

And still, Clinton was a better administrator and a better diplomat (we were a whole hell of a lot more popular when he was around.)



I was just saying Clinto had the same policy. Bush is just continuing it. And what politcal ideology are you thinking of?

Sure, in human rights and standard of living. But just ask the Egyptians how well a single party rulership can motivate a populace to create wonders (for a good while, at least.)

Well, Egypt no longer exists; it collapsed in on itself and was eventually conquered by the Greeks, the founders of (albeit imperfect) democracy.


That's still and overly simplistic way at looking at things. I mean, look how effective the Nazis were at dragging Germany from hyper-inflation and depression into a world power.

And they ultimately destroyed everything they created while simultaneously eradicating almost an entire religion in Europe.

Yeah. That's why the Republicans controlling all 3 branches AND expanding executive powers is such a sucky thing.

I agree 100%. An effective one party state is just as bad as a one-party state created by law.

Yeah, nothing like that would ever happen here in America. :rolleyes: Well, except for the deflation part.

They all did...it was called the Great Depression. Also, look at Japan in the 80's or even the US in the late 1990's. However in Japan and the US we were blessed by the presence of a mature financial system, something nonexistent in China. Also, the financial troubles were at least admitted publically by the governments in question, not covered up by to keep the people from rioting.

Rural China has been depressed for two decades; even the Depression only lasted a fraction of that time.

Damn... that sounds like a long-term marriage between a creationist and a Darwinian evolutionist, metaphorically speaking of course...

But one where a divorce will put both of them in to a coma for a decade...

No, just the dumbass side. I believe China might just be the worst country in the world right now. It's the worst of both systems.

The supression and sameness of the Communist Model, combined with the Exploitation and inhumanity of an extreme Capitalist Model.

I find it quite amusing when people say that. It is by no means a civil utopia, but you should not compare it as the worst country there is when there are countless genocides in Africa and growing poverty elsewhere.

If this is true it makes more sense than you think,

China is more powerful economically and as a military force than Taiwan,
The only downside is that it may get us into a conflict with Taiwan

But it's not the cold war anymore we need to be more strategic, we're not in competion with the commies anymore.

PS

In China they have to deal with alot of Propaganda, there's this Chinese immigrant-kid on my bus that was talking a about the "Evil King" that lives in Taiwan. So Morally it's wrong to Support China on this, but strategically, it makes more sense; like a deal with the devil.

I find it quite amusing when people say that. It is by no means a civil utopia, but you should not compare it as the worst country there is when there are countless genocides in Africa and growing poverty elsewhere.
Plus they still have free education and health services, even if these don't reach the totality of population. The irony of it all is that the young Chinese people I've met (admittedly not many but a few), don't seem to be so critical of their own country, even if they don't particularly like not having a democracy. In fact, they were quite defensive when I questioned them about their fears of living in a non-democratic country. Certainly, they wouldn't have been the democratic activists (in which case they would have reasons to be afraid), but it made me scrap my prejudices that everyone might live in a state of perpetual fear.

All you said sounds true... thing is, does a country like China need foreign investment as much as India does? I get the feeling they are exporting a lot as it is...

Hey, anyone remember which country loaned the US a lot of money recently and is collecting a nice amount of interest on it?

Hey, anyone remember which country loaned the US a lot of money recently?
Nope, but I got a feeling you're just about to tell us... :D
Maybe they can lend me some as well, if I start saying I oppose Taiwan's independence...

Nope, but I got a feeling you're just about to tell us... :D
Maybe they can lend me some as well, if I start saying I oppose Taiwan's independence...

I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with vagina.

It's simple really. USA desire to spread democracy is weaker than their desire for China's economic love-money. They want that sticky yuan all over their administrations dirty whore face. Remember, when it comes to money, it doesn't matter whether you are facist, anarchist or whatever; USA swallows.

I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with vagina.
Penis? Does that rhyme with vagina? :D Can't think of a country named Penis though :confused:

Does anyone know how long Taiwan has been (at least politically) independent for? I'm actually a bit ignorant of Taiwan's nation status but, as far as I can remember, China has been out for very long, no? Am I wrong?
On and off over the past 2000 years they would have spent about 1000 independant. In the last 100 years, all of them. Put it this way; when the popular communist revolution shook china 60 years ago, the head of the legitimate, corrupt, capitalist government fled to taiwan with all of his supporters. China has only made claim upon Taiwan since its economic success.

On and off over the past 2000 years they would have spent about 1000 independant. In the last 100 years, all of them. Put it this way; when the popular communist revolution shook china 60 years ago, the head of the legitimate, corrupt, capitalist government fled to taiwan with all of his supporters. China has only made claim upon Taiwan since its economic success.
Just like they did with Macau and Hong Kong, although these were western colonies...

Just like they did with Macau and Hong Kong, although these were western colonies...
Kind of, however Honkie Kong and Macau were leased off China by western powers for very little in return. Nevertheless, the two regions were originally part of China. Taiwan was not, and has not been for some time. If anyone should claim Taiwan it should be the Japanese (They have more right to it than China). People think of the country in racial terms. Taiwan is chinese and next to china, therefore they should be part of China. Histroically this just is not so.

If China can claim Taiwan, they can claim Singapore too.

Kind of, however Honkie Kong and Macau were leased off China by western powers for very little in return. Nevertheless, the two regions were originally part of China. Taiwan was not, and has not been for some time. If anyone should claim Taiwan it should be the Japanese (They have more right to it than China). People think of the country in racial terms. Taiwan is chinese and next to china, therefore they should be part of China. Histroically this just is not so.

If China can claim Taiwan, they can claim Singapore too.

I think the claim is at least as much political as it is racial. When the defeated Nationalists fled to Taiwan in '49, they carried with them the tattered political ideals of the Republic of China. To the Communist Party, the ROC died in 1949. It is true, check any Chinese dictionary with a history section, it says ROC from 1912-1949. Then PROC from 1949-Present.

Initially there was no need to officially claim Taiwan, since the escapee ROC government was a corrupt, martial law wreck anyway. Besides the CPC did try to fight a cross strait war in the 50's, with disastrous results.

Then suddenly something happened. With land reforms and gradual liberalisation of the economy and political rights, Taiwan's economy grew steadily to become one of the little economic powerhouses in the Pacific. The stranglehold of the Nationalist Party was loosened and it became a multi-party democracy with its trademark embarrassing parliamentary scuffling as shown on TV.

In contrast, China under Mao suffered through the Great Leap Forward and the intellectual demolition project that is the Cultural Revolution. Millions died. Communism turned into demigod worship. China plunged into poverty and chaos.

What a tremendous loss of face that an entity, which for all purposes was supposed to have decayed and died, the ROC, thrives offshore, while the glorious PROC languished!

With the advent of capitalist reforms, China is now a nascent economic powerhouse itself. Rich and militarily powerful, it can finally right the political anomaly that is the ROC. To claim Taiwan is to proclaim political superiority over the Nationalists in the name of unity. That the CPC is the sovereign system, and the ROC's democratic system is merely a subset of their "One country two systems" model.

Well considaring I have "Free Taiwan!" in my sig I don't agree with him but the US doesn't want to risk war with China over it and it's been US policy for a loooooong time, so it doesn't surpirse me.

Realpolitik my dears. Bush, like any good leader (even if he isn't one), is doing what is most practical, not what is most ideologically coherent.

:confused: :eek: :headbang: he's done it again...
Maybe someone already said this, maybe not. But having a Communsit state is completely impossible.

China's claim to Taiwan is so weak as to be laughable. Hell, Germany had a better justification for annexing the Sudetenland than China has for annexing Taiwan.
Their claim for Tibet was even weaker, yet it didn't stop them taking it by force.

Thanks Vetalia... How a western government can oppose to its independence is beyond me, particularly the US... Smells like serious financial trouble is coming out of the Bush Administration...
Well, if you started following Chinese international relations, you'll begin to notice that whenever anything critical is levelled towards China (esp Human rights abuses and their stance towards Taiwan), they invariably trot out implied threats regarding how much economic power China now has, how much Western Countries depend on trade with China now, and how bad it would be for you if that stopped.
Basically: Don't complain about us and we'll keep trading with you.

Plus they still have free education and health services, even if these don't reach the totality of population. The irony of it all is that the young Chinese people I've met (admittedly not many but a few), don't seem to be so critical of their own country, even if they don't particularly like not having a democracy. In fact, they were quite defensive when I questioned them about their fears of living in a non-democratic country. Certainly, they wouldn't have been the democratic activists (in which case they would have reasons to be afraid), but it made me scrap my prejudices that everyone might live in a state of perpetual fear.
It's not the living in fear that's the problem. It's the living in ignorance that has come about from having a tightly controlled media and education system.
They have some incredibly backward, and stereotypical ideas, about the world outside of China.

It's why they're not particularly critical of their own country: They brought up being constantly told, in the media and throughout their entire education, how wonderful and great China is and how morally corrupt the rest of the world is.

It's not the living in fear that's the problem. It's the living in ignorance that has come about from having a tightly controlled media and education system.
They have some incredibly backward, and stereotypical ideas, about the world outside of China.

It's why they're not particularly critical of their own country: They brought up being constantly told, in the media and throughout their entire education, how wonderful and great China is and how morally corrupt the rest of the world is.
So the US and China have something in common then? :)

Just like they did with Macau and Hong Kong, although these were western colonies...
Not exactly true. HK and Kowloon were leased in perpertuity to the UK. The New Territories (the large slab of land between Kowloon and the Chinese border was on a 99yr lease, due back in 1997.
So the Brits could have kept control of Kowloon and HK forever, but they had to hand over the NT in 1997. As most of the water and electricity comes from the NT, this realised this could cause a lot of problems.
So it was agreed to hand back everything, but to allow HK to maintain it's own governance and laws for 50 years. I think a similar deal was done with the Portugese and Macau.
Technically HK and Macau are Special Administrative Regions.

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Bush said that to Hu Jintao. Taiwan (or Formosa, heh) is a very sensitive issue. They are not even afforded recognition in the United Nations as an independent state because of China's clout in the General Assembly. So if he did indeed make that statement, Bush probably did it just to placate Hu. Why antagonize our trading partner unless it's necessary. Makes you wonder why Bush is so much more careless with relations with other countries besides China. :confused:

Their claim for Tibet was even weaker, yet it didn't stop them taking it by force.

Except here they have no realistic chance to take Taiwan by force.