Chen is not the root of US-Taiwan tensions

[dArKeR]

President Chen Shui-bian's (???) critics repeatedly charge that he is responsible for the tensions that plague US-Taiwan relations. Are such criticisms justified? A closer look suggests that many of the strains in US-Taiwan relations must be traced to recent changes in the international system.

Since 1949, a series of dramatic transformations in world politics have generated both opportunities and challenges for Taipei. During the early months of 1950, it appeared that Taiwan would be overrun by the People's Republic of China (PRC). The US refused to assist the island in its efforts to repel Communist aggression. After the outbreak of the Korean conflict on June 25, 1950, however, the Truman administration reversed its position. Washington and Taipei signed a defense treaty in 1954 and massive amounts of US economic and military aid poured into Taiwan.

During the late 1960s, strategic considerations led US president Richard Nixon to seek a rapprochement with China and in 1971 the US quietly acquiesced to Taiwan's expulsion from the UN. In 1979, Washington cut its ties with Taipei to establish diplomatic relations with Beijing. These moves came as a devastating blow to Taiwan, but there was nothing that the Taiwanese government could do about it.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/05/19/2003255747

http://liensoongpigs.tripod.com/

[dArKeR]

1. Taiwan's Chen Buoyed by Vote on Special Panel - Liar Philip P. Pan WP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400927.html

Dear WP Management,

Pan is a liar because he consistantly omits the facts about Taiwan. I've been following WP/him for years. He is a KMT Chinese who's father/mother invaded Taiwan in 1949. Without knowing him, I know this 100% by his lack of publishing key facts about TW/CN and his wording towards Formosans/Taiwanese. How could the WP allow this KMT supporter biasly write about TW? I sure hope the WP can be sued for this in the near future.

Formosa was invaded in 1949 by the defeated KMT fleeing from China. They murdered, MORE THAN SADDAM, and renamed the island Taiwan.

With today's internet, you'd be surprised about the millions of people who know about Pan/WP liars!!!!! Pan is a LACKEY!

Thank you,
Oregon

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Generalissimo to be buried in Taiwan
LEGACY: The man who led the shattered remnants of the Chinese Nationalist Party's forces to Taiwan after their defeat by the Communists will be buried here after all
By Chang Yun-ping and Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, Jul 09, 2004,Page 1

The bodies of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (???) and his son and successor, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (???), which lie embalmed in temporary mausoleums in Taoyuan County, will finally be buried after Chiang's descendants asked the government to bury the bodies of the two presidents in a military cemetery in northern Taiwan.

Generalissimo Chiang fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing the Civil War against the Chinese Community Party. Chiang died in 1975. The burial of Chiang and his son in Taiwan mark the Chiang family's recognition that the "Republic of China" military could never retake China.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/07/09/2003178228


The ‘New Taiwan Person’
Centuries ago, the island had an aboriginal culture of Malay and Polynesian descent. In the 17th century, the Dutch and Portuguese had colonies here, and the imported Chinese laborers — all men — intermarried with locals, forming the basis of the majority of today’s population. According this version of history, it was only in 1887 that China declared Taiwan a part of its territory in an effort to stem Japanese expansionism, say independence activists. But when that failed, China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity.
The Japanese held Taiwan for 50 years, until their defeat in World War II. In the years immediately after, Allied Forces backed Chiang Kai-shek’s temporary occupation of Taiwan. But according to pro-independence legal experts, the Nationalists never had a legal basis to stay.
“In 1949, Taiwan did not “split off from China”, but was occupied by the losing side in the Chinese Civil War,” according to a 1999 white paper endorsed by 18 overseas Taiwanese associations.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/316717.asp?cp1=1

Lee said that the people of Taiwan need to shrug off the mentality of being a "long-term laborer" after being ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for half a century, and take up the responsibility of being the master of their own country.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/02/09/2003098044

Liu Yan Chun grew up in Taiwan firmly believing that her family would someday go back to mainland China. It took most of her life to realize that there would be no triumphant return, as envisioned by the Nationalists when they retreated (Edit: this word should be INVADED Formosa which they renamed to Taiwan.) to Taiwan after defeat by the Chinese Communists in 1949. It took her longer still to realize that she had no desire to return.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/315530.asp

`One China' review under way
RE-EXAMINATION: An academic at the Heritage Foundation says the US is studying the longstanding policy with an eye to debunking the myth that Taiwan is part of China
By Charles Snyder
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Thursday, Jun 17, 2004,Page 1

The Bush administration is already conducting a secret review of its "one China" policy, although the review is fairly narrow and technical and will not necessarily result in a decision to support Taiwan's independence, a leading Washington Taiwan specialist says.

John Tkacik, an academic at the Heritage Foundation, told the Taipei Times that the review aims to debunk the myth that Taiwan is part of China and to clarify just what a "one China" policy means.

He was commenting on a report issued in Washington on Tuesday by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which recommended that the Bush administration and Congress "conduct a fresh assessment of the `one China' policy, given the changing realities in China and Taiwan."

"I think the State Department is already reviewing the `one China' policy," Tkacik said.


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/06/17/2003175359



KMT can go back to China

History is coming full circle ("KMT delegation travels to China for historic visit," March 28, page 2). The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) can go home now. As far as the Taiwanese are concerned, China is the KMT's home, not Taiwan.

Some Taiwanese did favor going back to the "motherland" after World War II. However, they did not expect the murdering, corrupt, thieving, arrogant, self-appointed government that was the KMT regime. "The KMT does not support Taiwan independence" is a statement that masks the fact that the KMT does not support democracy. In fact, it does not support Taiwan.

Are KMT Chairman Lien Chan (??) and his KMT cronies so naive as to think they can talk the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) out of "non-peaceful means" to resolve the Taiwan issue? If that's the case, more power to them. More likely, they would rather disarm Taiwan to make it more convenient for the CCP to annex Taiwan by "non-peaceful means."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/04/01/2003248717



Beijing's claims tied to war myth
Despite the opposition of Taiwan and the international community, China passed an "Anti-Secession" Law, attempting to realize its ambition to invade Taiwan through legal means. The purpose of the legislation is to continue the Chinese civil war and provide a legislative endorsement for a war launched by the executive.

China has no documentary evidence to prove its sovereignty over Taiwan. Its claim is based on its Constitution or the Anti-Secession Law -- which states in Article 2 that, "There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China." Such a unilateral claim does not make Taiwan part of its territory. This is just like Beijing's demand for its allies to acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China when they establish diplomatic ties. It is not legally binding and is merely an exchange of political opinions.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/04/12/2003250165


Jackie 'Whore' Chan is a Communist Puppet!
Senior DPP figure gets in a tangle over Jackie Chan
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/04/23/2003137723