78 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

Here is why your article is shocking:

You have cited the Taiwan Relations Act a 'justification' for your position regarding China.

The Taiwan Relations Act was merely concerning the U.S. Government and NOT America's relations with China and with its province of Taiwan. It is logically SUBORDINATE TO the Shanghai Communique, which is an agreement BETWEEN China and U.S. Anything in the Taiwan Relations Act that contradicts the Shanghai Communique of 1972 is null and void automatically.

The Shanghai Communique, in 1972, committed the U.S. Government to -- and agreed with China's Government that -- "Taiwan is a part of China." Consistently since the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the official policy of the U.S. Government is and has been "Taiwan is a part of China."

Your article logically implied, instead of overtly said, that Taiwan can declare independence from China — DESPITE BEING “a part of China. Here is the (il)logic of your position:

Your article alleges that Taiwan should be able to declare independence from China despite America’s Government having formally committed itself that Taiwan is a part of China, and that U.S. taxpayers should fund this U.S. aggression against China.

Furthermore, you are assuming (likewise falsely) that Taiwan is of such vital national-security interest to the safety of America (protecting the safety of the residents in the USA), so that America, which is legally committed to Taiwan’s being a Chinese province, ought to arm Taiwan so that Taiwan can declare itself to be NOT a part of China, so that China can then be defeated by LOSING that “part of China.” That’s what you want. You want U.S. taxpayers to fund this U.S. aggression against China. It is crazy. It is loaded with false assumptions. And the very IDEA that U.S. taxpayers should fund U.S. aggression isn't merely crazy, it is evil, and I, as a U.,S. taxpayer, recognize this.

Expand full comment

Your well argued comment pre-supposes that China has no hegemonistic intentions for the South China Sea and East China Sea and in the Pacific. Can we really be sure that a totalitarian state like the PRC that has been building up its armed forces for decades has no such intentions? I think not. So we must learn from the strategic failure of ceding Czechoslovakia before WW2 and not only entrench ourselves in existing positions but fortify them as much as possible to deter Chinese aggression in the South and East China Seas and beyond.

Expand full comment

"Hegemony" is a universalized form of imperialism, and refers to a nation (such as "abcd") grabbing one that ISN'T on its borders and that therefore is not necessary to control its foreign affairs such as its ability to ally militarily with a nation that seeks to conquer abcd. America IS hegemonic. Russia and China are NOT.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the reply but I maintain that claiming sovereignty over uninhabited islands and shoals in the territorial waters of the Philippines is extremely imperialistic, especially since that claim is based on a disputed 200 mile EEZ extended from an archipelago of uninhabited and UNINHABITABLE islets that are admittedly within the 200 mile EEZ of the PRC.

Expand full comment

Both Russia and China -- UNLIKE USA -- are NOT imperialistic. America is hyper-imperialistic -- seeking to conquer ultimately the entire world.

Expand full comment
Error