Stinking Fwench Government Whores Sell Soul (again) and Tiawan to Chinese Commies

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dracon II
A nation-state acting in its own self interest?

The arguement is that it isn't a sound policy. There's a whole thread that's been linked to earlier in this one that made that point and no one has made yet made a cogent arguement why it is a good policy for France to try and aid in the destablization of Asia when there is no clear benefit to them. This is especially clear in light of recent events and given the fact France is virtually alone in thier stance among EU members.

Oh and if ...

You want people to take you seriously it would be great if you'd deal with what people are argueing with rather than what you percieve about them. It's annoying and serves little purpose when you wish to keep of the pretense of not being a troll.

[DanS]

This French policy lacks coherence, unless it has written off the possibility of removing the arms ban any time soon due to EU reaction toward the secession law. It might be short-term business expediency. Maybe a long term chit at the UN Security Council. Maybe this is an indication that France will join China and South Korea in opposing Security Council membership for Japan (there are some strange bedfellows on Council reform and the US is having a grand time playing people off against one another).

France should be fuming at China for making France internal EU diplomacy look incredibly weak with the secession law being passed right after France raised the possibility of removing the arms ban. It made the US look like the reasonable Defender of the Free World with minimal effort. Is New Europe cool with French willingness to sell a democracy down the river like this?

[Colon™]

I agree that France is shooting itself in the foot big-time. The EU's greatest asset in international diplomacy is its moral authorithy (supposed or real) and lifting the embargo deal be a severe blow to it.

[DanS]

And what's the deal with the EU giving Yushenko a cold shoulder? He gets a standing ovation at a joint session of the congress and a red carpet press conference at the White House -- real hero treatment.

Can't buy a handshake from some of the EU.

[notyoueither]

He isn't willing to pay enough?

[DanS]

How much does it cost nowadays?

There's an old story where Adams was stunned to find the French foreign minister requiring a princely payment of $250,000 for a meeting.

He never got on too well with the French, although Franklin and Jefferson both found out quickly that the cheapest way to conduct diplomacy in France was through the boudoir.

[notyoueither]

I don't know. I'm just guessing based on everything comes down to value in Euros according to attitudes about foreign relations in much of the EU.

[DanS]

I edited you midpost.

[Lancer]

"I'm just guessing based on everything comes down to value in Euros according to attitudes about foreign relations in much of the EU."

Stinking Fwench Government >>>Whores<<< Sell Soul (again) and Tiawan to Chinese Commies


Got it covered

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
How much does it cost nowadays?

There's an old story where Adams was stunned to find on his posting from the rebel continental congress that the French foreign minister required a princely payment of $50,000 for a meeting.

He never got on too well with the French, although Franklin and Jefferson both found out quickly that the cheapest way to conduct diplomacy in France was through the boudoir.

Yup, obviously Adams was a piss poor diplomat - thank God someone like Franklyn was there, to save the rebels.

[DaShi]

And Luke and Han.

[DanS]

I edited you mid-post. Apologies. He was president at the time. XYZ affair.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by DanS
And what's the deal with the EU giving Yushenko a cold shoulder? He gets a standing ovation at a joint session of the congress and a red carpet press conference at the White House -- real hero treatment.

Can't buy a handshake from some of the EU.

I'm sure that this is a complete mischaracterization. He is welcomed in America because we like to think of ourselves as a champion of democracy and freedom, and Yushenko's rise to power certainly fits our model of a wave of revolutions.

Now, and I will preface this by stating that I am not really familiar with the particulars of the European situation, but they may be waiting to congratulate him until they see what he will do the the Ukraine. The old regime was corrupt and, in fact, probably did rig elections. Yushenko, however, could conceivably be a corporate tool, and he has not spent the time since the election unifying the country, but has been partaking in sectarian politics. I think that this is likely to be the European reason for not welcoming Yushenko because you'll remember that during the crisis, Europe joined the rest of the west in calling for new elections and making sure that the electoral system was legitimate.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by DanS
How much does it cost nowadays?

There's an old story where Adams was stunned to find the French foreign minister requiring a princely payment of $50,000 for a meeting.

He never got on too well with the French, although Franklin and Jefferson both found out quickly that the cheapest way to conduct diplomacy in France was through the boudoir.

And what's the deal with French bashing using occurences in 1798? That's like saying, "man, we need to invade Iraq because back in the 1800s, those damn Ottomans were menacing the Balkans like none other."

[notyoueither]

Or maybe it's based on France selling a democracy down the river for the profit of selling a few aircraft?

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The arguement is that it isn't a sound policy.

The anti-secession bill can be construed as a threat. But does it not simply say that if Taiwan makes move to formalize its independence, then the Chinese will retaliate? If so, then it is more sound for the Chinese clarify their position than to leave a question mark over the issue. It is not a radical bill, but a bill that puts greater imperative upon maintaining the status quo. French support then is not so much destabilizing as an honest approval of the One China policy (as Taiwan making moves to declare independence would be a flagrant violation of such policy). Let's take a look at the actual bill, shall we?

Article 1 This Law is formulated, in accordance with the Constitution, for the purpose of opposing and checking Taiwan's secession from China by secessionists in the name of "Taiwan independence", promoting peaceful national reunification, maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, preserving China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation.

So far I don't feel destabilised... this is merely a clarification and a restatement of China's ongoing attitude.

Article 2 There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means.

Again, a restatement of existing attitudes.

Article 3 The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s.

Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair, which subjects to no interference by any outside forces.

Again, a restatement of existing attitudes.

Article 4 Accomplishing the great task of reunifying the motherland is the sacred duty of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

Again, a restatement of existing attitudes

Article 5 Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country.

Again, a restatement of existing attitudes, and one that most nations in the world implicitly accept in their recognition of the one China policy.

To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.

Not a bad thing to be codifying in law, is it?

After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.

Again, not a bad thing to be codifying in law...

Article 6 The state shall take the following measures to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and promote cross-Straits relations:

(1) to encourage and facilitate personnel exchanges across the Straits for greater mutual understanding and mutual trust;

Meh....

(2) to encourage and facilitate economic exchanges and cooperation, realize direct links of trade, mail and air and shipping services, and bring about closer economic ties between the two sides of the Straits to their mutual benefit;

Not so bad either....

(3) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits exchanges in education, science, technology, culture, health and sports, and work together to carry forward the proud Chinese cultural traditions;

Good good.

(4) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits cooperation in combating crimes; and

Good good.

(5) to encourage and facilitate other activities that are conducive to peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and stronger cross-Straits relations.

Not a bad thing to codify in law

The state protects the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in accordance with law.

A bit smelly.

Rights and interests "in accordance with law" could be anything. The Chinese never make mention of "inalienable rights", rather they talk of rights "in accordance with law".

Article 7 The state stands for the achievement of peaceful reunification through consultations and negotiations on an equal footing between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. These consultations and negotiations may be conducted in steps and phases and with flexible and varied modalities.

Sounds like a decent guarantee to me.

The two sides of the Taiwan Straits may consult and negotiate on the following matters:
(1) officially ending the state of hostility between the two sides;

I'm listening....

(2) mapping out the development of cross-Straits relations;

Still listening....

(3) steps and arrangements for peaceful national reunification;

Uncompromising... but not an unprecedented attitude

(4) the political status of the Taiwan authorities;

Listening.... although this could imply treason charges.

(5) the Taiwan region's room of international operation that is compatible with its status; and

Taiwan has currently very little room for international operation anyway....

(6) other matters concerning the achievement of peaceful national reunification.

see (3).

Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

"[T]o cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China" means an official act or declaration of independence, or an amendment to the constitution that declares independence. The "idea" of Taiwanese independence, or talking about independence does not constitute a "fact" of secession.

Article 9 In the event of employing and executing non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in this Law, the state shall exert its utmost to protect the lives, property and other legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan civilians and foreign nationals in Taiwan, and to minimize losses. At the same time, the state shall protect the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in other parts of China in accordance with law

Again with the "in accordance with law" thing. Of course this can be taken as rhetoric. The Chinese should make reference to the Geneva convention as its guideline for conduct should they employ "non-peaceful means".

This law seems to me a codification of the status quo. It is a clarification of China's position on the subject. In the eyes of China it is not unlike the kind of law or ultimatum Lincoln would've made on the subject of confederate secession (that'll ruffle a few feathers I know. Taiwan is not a slaving nation nor does it trample rights. The analogy is flawed, but its certainly similar to the way the CCP would be seeing things.)

However, in my opinion, it's better that they make their position clear on the subject (as they have) than leave us all guessing. It also provides greater incentive to settle this issue once and for all.
A US Law stating that it would defend Taiwan if it caused the "fact" of secession would be more destabilizing than this law... as it would lessen the moral hazard in Taiwan's perception of making such moves.
This law is only really destabilising if one accepts a "two China" policy. Given that most nations accept a One China policy, I see no inconsistency in France supporting this law.
This law is pure One China Policy in action. It offers Taiwan the opportunity of peaceful reunification and a measure of autonomy, but cautions it against making moves to destroy the status quo. I see nothing new or destabilising in this. China is unequivocally stating which course of action it will accept and which course of action it rejects.
I can see a role for the US in siding with Taiwan in the determination of fair terms for reunification. But a US that supports Taiwan breaking the status quo is incredibly dangerous.

Yes, China is being stubborn over Taiwan. I would like to see an independent democratic Taiwan. I would also like to see a democratic China. But it is too late to resolve this peacefully without ceding ground to China. This law simply removes any illusion that the situation could be otherwise.

You want people to take you seriously it would be great if you'd deal with what people are argueing with rather than what you percieve about them. It's annoying and serves little purpose when you wish to keep of the pretense of not being a troll.

I was dealing with what people were arguing. I was simply responding by making a comparison that would remove the illusion, that was trying to be created, that France was somehow deviant and exceptional in it's selfish and short-sighted policies, or that it is universally so under any circumstance.

To say that French (or any other country) policies are greedy and short-sighted is to invite criticism of US (or any other country's) policies that are equally (if not more) so. All nations are predisposed to making selfish and short-sighted policies. I was simply pointing out that France is not exceptional in this regard.

I'm not sure is Pchang is an American. If he is not, then if he tells me which country he's from perhaps I can tell him where his own nation has lacked "long term vision". Arguing by comparison does not always make sense of the literal content of the argument. What I was doing was arguing against the implications of Pchangs statements; that France's foreign policy is universally greedy and short-sighted, and that by singling them out, that this is somehow exceptional. That demanded a response. By using the USA as an example, I was making the point that short sightedness and greed are not qualities unique to the French.
Had Pchang stated "France's policy on China's anti-secession law lacks long term vision"... then the argument would certainly continue to center on the subject of the debate.
Making sweeping and universalising statements on a nation's entire body of foreign policy, without any explanation seems to me more of a troll than anything I said. But if what I did say was a troll (which I don't think it was), then it was merely a counter-troll.

[notyoueither]

or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In who's judgement? The Prime Minister of France just endorsed that.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Oh and if Americans want any credibility in their accusations of French "short-sighted opportunist" foreign policies... maybe they should reexamine their Government's position on global climate change and Kyoto? (same goes for my Government)...

I do concede that I made the assumption that Pchang is an American. I apologize to him, as I myself revealed a prejudice, being that anti-French views are necessarily American. That is wrong, and I apologize.

[:) Smiley]

Meh.

Cross-straits relations are one of the longest running jokes of our times.

1950s: Both China and Taiwan vow to invade the other, skirmishes on some islands off of Xiamen, nothing happens.

1970s: Artillery bombardment between mainland China and Taiwanese held islands off the coast- with the interesting twist that one side fires on odd-numbered days, the other side on even-numbered days, nothing happens. Interestingly all those artillery shells have become a "natural resource" on the island of Kinmen, where they are used to make cooking knives.

1990s: Real democracy on Taiwan beings about lots of inflammatory election promises, Chinese government fires missiles into the strait, nothing happens. Stock markets crash but later recover.

[Vesayen]

I really don't want to get into a war with China but ******* like Agathon reminding us that France has stabbed us in the back(and has been doing so for years) makes me eager for the prospect of a war where we can invade, or better yet, destroy, France when we are done in China.

[notyoueither]

How would it play if the US Congress passed a measure authorising the executive to use any and all means of US military force to guarantee and preserve democracy in Taiwan?

[Vesayen]

The public would not support a war for Taiwan, no matter how stupid the red populace of the U.S. is, none of them are so suicidal-it would be a long hard war, though we would win.

[Sandman]

Again: When are Russia and Israel going to pay for their treachery?

[Vesayen]

Israel? Israel is one of the only allies of the U.S. who has not turned its back on us in recent years in spirit or in reality.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Vesayen
The public would not support a war for Taiwan, no matter how stupid the red populace of the U.S. is, none of them are so suicidal-it would be a long hard war, though we would win.

Perhaps the Chinese know this.

The USA won't be able to get the Chinese to revoke this law... but it will perhaps persuade the US to keep pressure on Taiwan to restrain itself, although I would hazard a guess that the Taiwanese are just as (if not more) reluctant to invite a war with China than the USA.

A hotheaded interpretation of this policy will make a hotheaded response more likely. I would say the best response is take this law as half serious/half posturing and then maintain the status quo until favourable conditions for reunification prevail (the political liberalization of mainland China and a commitment to federalism in my opinion). China has made the claim on Taiwan, and it has initiated the rhetorical battle, therefore the initial steps must be made by them. Their first step must be an ironclad guarantee of their promises made to Hong Kong and an enthusiastic implementation of them. Taiwan will never trust China's promises until it can see them in action.
It is tragic that the will of the Taiwanese cannot be taken into account. I truly do wish that the Taiwanese people get what they want. But if, as Vesayan suggests, the Americans will not go to war with China over Taiwan, then it has two options: postpone reunification until favourable conditions prevail, or elect Neville Chamberlain to the Presidency.
The USA in my opinion has to take a position between brinksmanship and appeasement. That position is the status quo, and maintaining military support (I previously said military presence in... but that was an error. Of course putting US troops in Taiwan would be foolish) for Taiwan that is powerful enough to inflict enough damage on the Chinese military to deter them from "non-peaceful" action. This will likely entail an escalation commensurate with the expansion of the Chinese Military (The EU's actions in this regard will clearly not help the situation).
Chirac's support for the bill is at best a symbolic gratuity that can be exchanged for something substantial, and an enthusiastic expression of support for the One China Policy. I don't think it will significantly serve to destabilise the situation.... the French haven't had significant influence over Asian affairs since Dien Bien Phu sent them scuttling home. I don't think the idea of a nation expressing support for another nation's foreign policy, for the purpose of national gain is without precedent, to the contrary, it is a main staple of International Relations. Albeit this is a significant and contraversial move, the necessity of which is highly contestable.

[Sandman]

Israel sells weapons to China.

[chequita guevara]

The GOP China baiting got derailed when some fanatics decided to committ mass murder in my country. Previous to that, they were really whipping up the anti-China hysteria. But they've got their war, so they don't really need a new Cold War to get what they wanted.

[Dracon II]

I've been meditating on the situation further and I can see the point that so many have been putting so emotionally.

The EU (France especially) is frustrating things somewhat. I stick to my previous statements, but I do acknowledge why Americans feel the EU are not helping.
The difference, of course, regards national interests. Europe has long ceded its strategic influence in the region and is thus really only connected to Asia economically. Thus, its Foreign Policy is going to be such that it attempts to gain in the region economically, but without any real muscle with which to back it up. This means they must take on a more conciliatory and friendly stance than the US, which, aside from having an export market that cannot be ignored, maintains a significant military presence in the region. The USA has moved its eye off Asia and has committed itself to Iraq and the middle east in recent years, thus giving China room with which to increase its influence and embolden its stance. The US must try and reclaim ground. With an economy increasingly organising itself around China, the USA must increasingly fight harder to maintain its grasp. It is still the greatest power in the pacific, but a shift is underway. And Europe has not helped.

I'm no John J Mearshimer, but I think the situation will get more aggressive in years to come. There will be no World War, in my opinion... but I can see a multipolar Cold War emerging as a distinct possibility. I think that we will quite possibly miss the days when the US stood supreme and unchallenged, and when people talked about globalization rather than regionalization.

Personally, and upon further consideration of my instincts, I'd prefer it if Europe did not make too much noise with regard to the Taiwan issue; of course they have the right to determine their foreign policy, but it's hardly likely that they'll be the one's giving their lives should the situation turn messy (unless it goes nuclear, in which case we're all ****ed). The interested parties are primarily China, Taiwan, the US and the region at large.

I dunno... I'm a bit erratic about these things because I can understand the reason behind a number of contradictory positions. I don't know if what I have said is coherent or true... but they're just some thoughts that dropped on my head like brown acid.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
Again: When are Russia and Israel going to pay for their treachery?

We keep Israel from selling the good stuff and have killed at least one of thier deals over the years. Personally, I'd be for waving the big stick of cutting the aid we give them in order to stem the flow of Israeli arms to China even further. We have no such influence over Russia. Is that what you wanted to hear?

[Dracon II]

How dependent on the USA is Israel? I'd have thought that if you were surrounded by enemies and the most powerful country in the world was one of your only consistent and loyal allies you wouldn't test their patience by selling weapons to China....