Taiwan to buy $6.4 billion in weapons from US

3, 4 posts in a row? Big deal. Fine, but can you change your condescending tone a little bit in telling others what to do and get off your "etiquette" moral high chair?

This is a casual BBS forum, for Jesus the Almighty's sake.

 

I'm simply passing along what Clutch and the mods prefer and you can ignore that, if you wish. As for a "high chair," with your behavior here, it obviously hasn't been long since you left one, with all respect due.

 

Kindly paste the link here please. Don't let laziness occupy us all the time. I think it's a good idea to know it. Thank you.

We're arrogant, biased and selfish creatures by nature most of the time, so let us get low for just a little while.

 

Dude, it is based on 8 years of experience on the BBS and seeing the response of the mods to people like you who post multiple times in a row. If you like, I could report it and ask if something could be done about it. I would rather not do that. I could also post about it in Feedback and see what the response is. Do you want me to do that, so you can find out if your stupidity has a basis for displeasure here? Why not post that question in Feedback yourself and see if you get a response? Thanks in advance.

Meanwhile, I'm going to lunch.

 

Are you trying to get banned?

 

Cool, I think the F-16 production line is set to close in a few years. An order from Taiwan could keep those workers employed for even longer. As for the submarines, where would the US get them? The US has no non-nuclear subs in its arsenal. Every country that has them has been afraid to sell to Taiwan, except for the Dutch who sold some a long time ago, but China nearly broke off all ties with them for that.

 

China's strident tone raises concerns among Western governments, analysts
By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013002443_pf.html

China's indignant reaction to the announcement of U.S. plans to sell weapons to Taiwan appears to be in keeping with a new triumphalist attitude from Beijing that is worrying governments and analysts across the globe.

From the Copenhagen climate change conference to Internet freedom to China's border with India, China observers have noticed a tough tone emanating from its government, its representatives and influential analysts from its state-funded think tanks.

Calling in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman on Saturday, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said the United States would be responsible for "serious repercussions" if it did not reverse the decision to sell Taiwan $6.4 billion worth of helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles, minesweepers and communications gear. The reaction came even though China has known for months about the planned deal, U.S. officials said.

"There has been a change in China's attitude," said Kenneth G. Lieberthal, a former senior National Security Council official who is currently at the Brookings Institution. "The Chinese find with startling speed that people have come to view them as a major global player. And that has fed a sense of confidence."

Lieberthal said another factor in China's new tone is a sense that after two centuries of exploitation by the West, China is resuming its role as one of the great nations of the world.

This new posture has befuddled Western officials and analysts: Is it just China's tone that is changing or are its policies changing as well?

In a case in point, one senior U.S. official termed as unusual China's behavior at the December climate conference, during which China publicly reprimanded White House envoy Todd Stern, dispatched a Foreign Ministry functionary to an event for state leaders and fought strenuously against fixed targets for emission cuts in the developed world.

Another issue is Internet freedom and cybersecurity, highlighted by Google's recent threat to leave China unless the country stops its Web censorship. At China's request, that topic was left off the table at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank and co-chairman of the event, told Bloomberg News. The forum ends Sunday.

China dismisses concerns
Analysts say a combination of hubris and insecurity appears to be driving China's mood. On one hand, Beijing thinks that the relative ease with which it skated over the global financial crisis underscores the superiority of its system and that China is not only rising but has arrived on the global stage -- much faster than anyone could have predicted. On the other, recent uprisings in the western regions of Tibet and Xinjiang have fed Chinese leaders' insecurity about their one-party state. As such, any perceived threat to their power is met with a backlash.

A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington said China's tone had not changed.

"China's positions on issues like arms sales to Taiwan and Tibet have been consistent and clear," Wang Baodong said, "as these issues bear on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which are closely related to Chinese core national interests."

The unease over China's new tone is shared by Europeans as well. "How Should Europe Respond to China's Strident Rise?" is the title of a new paper from the Center for European Reform. Just two years earlier, its author, institute director Charles Grant, had predicted that China and the European Union would shape the new world order.

"There is a real rethink going on about China in Europe," Grant said in an interview from Davos. "I don't think governments know what to do, but they know that their policies aren't working."

U.S. officials first began noticing the new Chinese attitude last year. Anecdotes range from the political to the personal.

At the World Economic Forum last year, Premier Wen Jiabao lambasted the United States for its economic mismanagement. A few weeks later, China's central bank questioned whether the dollar could continue to play its role as the international reserve currency.

And in another vignette, confirmed by several sources, a senior U.S. official involved in the economy hosted his Chinese counterpart, who then made a series of disparaging remarks about the bureau that the American ran. Later that night, the two were to dine at the American's house. The Chinese representatives called ahead, asking what was for dinner. They were informed that it was fish. "The director doesn't eat fish," one of them told his American interlocutor. "He wants steak. He says fish makes you weak." The menu was changed.

Tone with Europe, India
With Europe and India, China's strident tone has been even more apparent. In autumn 2008, China canceled a summit with the European Union after French President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama. Before that, it had denounced German Chancellor Angela Merkel over her contacts with the Tibetan spiritual leader. And in recent weeks, it has engaged in a heated exchange with British officials over its moves to block a broader agreement at the climate conference.

At the Chinese Embassy, Wang differed on the climate issue. "China is strongly behind the idea of meeting the issue of climate change," he said, "but at the same time we think that there are some people who want to confuse the situation, and we feel the need to try to let the rest of the world know our position clearly."

China also suspended ties with Denmark after its prime minister met the Dalai Lama and resumed them only after the Danish government issued a statement in December saying it would oppose Tibetan independence and consider Beijing's reaction before inviting him again.

"The Europeans have competed to be China's favored friend," Grant said, "but then they get put in the doghouse one by one."

China's newfound toughness also played out in a renewed dispute with India over Beijing's claims to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders Tibet. Last summer, China blocked the Asian Development Bank from making a $60 million loan for infrastructure improvements in the state. India then moved to fund the projects itself, prompting China to send more troops to the border.

David Finkelstein, a former U.S. Army officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency who now runs the China program at the Center for Naval Analyses, said the new tone underscores a shift in China. "On the external front," he said, "we will likely see a China that is more willing than in the past to proactively shape the external environment and international order rather than passively react to it."

An example would be events that unfolded in December when 22 Chinese Muslims showed up in Cambodia and requested political asylum. China wanted to hold seven of them on suspicion of participating in anti-Chinese riots in the Xinjiang region in July.

Under intense pressure from Beijing, Cambodia sent the group home, despite protests from the United States. Two days after the group was repatriated, China signed 14 deals with Cambodia worth about $1 billion.

What the future holds
Whether this new bluster from Beijing presages tougher policies and actions in areas of direct concern to the United States is a key question, Lieberthal said. What China does after the United States sells Taiwan the weapons may provide some clues.

Even before the United States announced its plans Friday, at least six senior Chinese officials, including officers from the People's Liberation Army, had warned Washington against the sale.

Once the deal was announced, China's Defense Ministry said it was suspending a portion of the recently resumed military relations with the United States. China also announced that it would sanction the U.S. companies involved in the sale.

What happens next will be crucial. China quietly sanctioned several U.S. companies for participating in such weapons sales in the past. However, it would mark a major change if China makes the list public and includes, for example, Boeing, which sells billions of dollars worth of airplanes to China each year.

He, the vice foreign minister, warned that the sales would also affect China's cooperation with the United States on regional issues. Does that mean China will continue to block Western efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran? Bonnie S. Glaser, a China security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the answer will probably come soon.

France takes over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council on Monday and is expected to push for a rapid move in that direction.

 

This is just my own opinion but I get the feeling that this arms sale and the PRC's outrage at it is just a pantomine that serves all parties political interests but in the long run isn't going to be mean very much. For me personally I have no problem accepting Taiwan as an independent country but I think the tide of history is for reunification, probably some sort of Federation like the EU, between the ROC and PRC. There is just too much cross border trade and other ties for them to continue an antagonistic stance.

At the sametime I highly doubt the PRC leadership is seriously considering economic retaliation with the US. While it helps them to waive the nationalist / triumphalist flag the PRC economy itself has problems that would be exposed if they suddnely couldn't export to the US. At the sametime a collapse of the US economy due to a credit crunch from the PRC would due major harm to all of the PRC's other trading partners. The PRC and US are essentially locked in an economic MAD situation that would occur if either tried to take economic steps against each other.

 

Really?

[rquoter]
US-PRC Joint Communique, August 17, 1982

2. The question of United States arms sales to Taiwan was not settled in the course of negotiations between the two countries on establishing diplomatic relations. The two sides held differing positions, and the Chinese side stated that it would raise the issue again following normalization. Recognizing that this issue would seriously hamper the development of United States-China relations, they have held further discussions on it, during and since the meetings between President Ronald Reagan and Premier Zhao Ziyang and between Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr., and Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Huang Hua in October 1981.

[/rquoter]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

The part from the article that I bolded below regarding India and China is more than a bit bizarre, at least in my opinion.

China's newfound toughness also played out in a renewed dispute with India over Beijing's claims to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders Tibet. Last summer, China blocked the Asian Development Bank from making a $60 million loan for infrastructure improvements in the state. India then moved to fund the projects itself, prompting China to send more troops to the border.

Does China seriously believe that it will be able to aquire Arunachal Pradesh by any way short of going to war with India? Is it willing to do that? Does it have any desire to ever "normalize" relations with India? I found it incredible that China would actually move to block loans from the Asian Development Bank for infrastructure improvements in an area that has little and desperately needs infrastructure. What is the point?

 

There has always been dispute over that part of the border. Below is what wiki says:

In 1913-1914 representatives of China, Tibet and Britain negotiated a treaty in India: the Simla Accord.[4] This treaty's objective was to define the borders between Inner and Outer Tibet as well as between Outer Tibet and British India. British administrator, Sir Henry McMahon, drew up the 550 miles (890 km) McMahon Line as the border between British India and Outer Tibet during the Simla Conference. The Tibetan and British representatives at the conference agreed to the line, which ceded Tawang and other Tibetan areas to the British Empire. The Chinese representative had no problems with the border between British India and Outer Tibet, however on the issue of the border between Outer Tibet and Inner Tibet the talks broke down. Thus, the Chinese representative refused to accept the agreement and walked out.[citation needed] The Tibetan Government and British Government went ahead with the Simla Agreement and declared that the benefits of other articles of this treaty would not be bestowed on China as long as it stays out of the purview. The Chinese position since then has been that since China had sovereignty over Tibet, the line was invalid without Chinese agreement. Furthermore, by refusing to sign the Simla documents, the Chinese Government had escaped according any recognition to the validity of the McMahon Line.[5]

 

You can't compare the massive amount of money, influence, and other material that Israel acquires from the US through special interests in DC to our foreign policy with Taiwan. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Moreover, it's an entirely different situation from an economic standpoint for Taiwan and China vs. Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Most of you on here keep commenting from a unipolar/American-lead perspective when in reality the international relations picture has changed considerably than the pre-9/11 lens you still view the world with.

I agree with you on boosting Japan and Taiwan's defenses though. Have to get back to work but I'll add in more later.

 

Wow this is impressive. The stamp regarding Taiwan is correct because well Taiwan was never "red". Most people thought the failure to paint Taiwan red caused this stamp to be quickly recalled after its initial issue, but that's not true. The real reason for its recall is that the *southwestern* border was not correctly rendered.

 

You're not being serious are you.

 

England vs. Nazi Germany.

 

Yeah, Taiwan has to buy it's toys. We hand it out to the Israelis on a silver platter in the name of peace.

 

I am not sure what you mean by viewing the world through American lenses, because that is largely irrelevant to this discussion. I also noticed you did not object to the vitriol put forth by the Chinese nationalists on the board or question their objectivity, you would not happen to be Chinese by any chance?

The fact is this: TAIWANESE officials themselves have come out and expressed their satisfaction with this deal, saying just how "important" this deal is for their own security needs. I would be happy to provide a link if you want, but you can google it yourself if you dont believe me.

Lost in this discussion is Taiwan itself and what they want, and CLEARLY they WANTED this deal to go through, because they NEED it. Have you read what the CCP supporters are saying here? They are the ones so irked by American sale of weapons to Taiwan that they are resorting to calling the Taiwanese "whores" and other despicable things, all for DARING to go against the wishes of their very large and obnoxious neighbor who is on record saying they will bring their republic into the fold by force if necessary. Increasing economic ties does NOT mean that Taiwan wants to rejoin the PRC, any more than the volume of American-Chinese trade would indicate a alliance between the USA and China.

Taiwan has already let its wishes be known, only one country here is ignoring those wishes and, in fact, doing everything possible to prevent any outside party of coming to Taiwan's defense. What should the international community do when a totalitarian regime comes out and pronounces its intent to annex another country? Just because the Chicoms around here are deadset against recognizing Taiwan as a country does not mean the world should follow suit. China overestimates itself, and that will be made crystal clear to them should they ever foolishly decide to do something about it. A lesson in humility might be necessary in the not so distant future. Chinese leaders and behaving in a way that threatens to turn China into a pariah state, clearly the EU and the USA are already on record with their concerns about Chinese actions and intent.

As long as Taiwan wishes to be free of PRC tyranny, the whole world (and not just the USA) has the moral responsibility to ensure that a democratic Taiwan is not bullied by its tyrannical neighbor. To me, this is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than the North and South Korea situation, it would be sad if we throw Taiwan under the bus in deference to bilateral economic interest with the PRC.

If I was Obama, I would announce an increase in military aid to Taiwan to signal to China that they cannot and will not bully Taiwan under our watch, and that the USA would do everything possible to make damn sure that the Taiwanese people can defend themselves against any PRC aggression. Our stance on this should be no less pronounced than our unconditional support to Israel, and it should be made repeatedly and IN PUBLIC, not behind closed doors.

 

Thanks for the quote. Most people probably don't know the place exists. I've known about the border dispute for a long time. What surprises me, and perhaps it shouldn't by now, is the Chinese reaction to India accepting aid from the development bank by blocking it, and then moving troops to the border when India provided the funds itself, no doubt taking them from another worthy project. China's reaction was not the action of a friendly state. It wasn't a reaction of a state wishing to have good relations with a neighbor. If anything, it was a threatening reaction. Moving troops to the border simply because India spent money on infrastructure in a very poor region strikes me as not only an unfriendly act, but stupid diplomacy.

 

I'm moved here from Hong Kong when I was 2 and have only visited Taiwan and Hong Kong in recent years.


But DAMN! I cant stand the mainlanders! soooo fckn rude!


so yeah ... fck China