<BACK                                                                                                                                        NEXT>_

Taiwan needs to learn about pragmatism and compromise to survive

Jeff Geer Las Vegas, USA

  I am writing to you about the social problems of Taiwan society and the growing political pressures of interest groups in the USA and Taiwan. The general comments of readers often suggests the U.S. is not entirely prepared to send its own American military assets to defend Taiwan. The TRA-based military arms race in Taiwan is fueled by the U.S. industrial military complex and budget spending is the crux of the matter.

  Taipei officials must use all TRA-based defense spending budgets for black gold practices with the Washington policy makers and the U.S. business lobbying interests concerned.

  These DPP continuations of the old KMT lobbying practices in Washington still reflect the Cold War mentality of all politicians in Taipei.

  There has been the very clear substitution of one "Quasi-Leninist" party for another, but so little has politically changed since the DPP assumed power in Taiwan.

  The Nixon doctrine of the 1972 Shanghai Communique was to slow down U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and to withdraw from East Asia.

  This has occurred in sporadic fashion but the KMT legislative blockade of the arms spending bill on numerous occasions demonstrates the Nixon objectives of 1972 are occurring.

  The "One China" policy has manifest itself in the present reality of Taiwan politics, and it is unlikely it will fade away soon.

  As Taiwan society is resistant to military drafts, and the vast majority of Taiwanese businessmen want to live unencumbered by the hardline political objectives of those DPP ideologues who would send the sons of Taiwanese parents to fight for a "Taiwan republic".

  Thus Taiwan society needs to find an alternate protection mechanism in the absence of the will to fight for DPP objectives.

  Some will find reunification with China is a political solution.

  Others will find the Richard Hartzell theory on the SFPT-based civil rights is the best solution for truly preserving the political future of a Taiwan republic, especially as there is no further need for expensive Taiwan defense expenditures and no more ROC military conscription schemes under the Hartzell solution.

  In light of the political predicament in Taipei, the DPP policy position on U.S. arms sales and ROC conscription is untenable in the long term for 2008 and beyond, especially if the KMT wins the Taiwan Presidency again.

  I feel that Taiwan is not best served by these highly confrontational DPP ideologues who lack their God-given common sense in taking any political course of action with the least political resistance from the KMT.

  This is a good time for some 'pan-green'  political compromises, but not more DPP ideologists with their Cold War lobbying objectives in DC.

  Kissinger was a pragmatist, but oddly the Taiwan people have forgotten how to be pragmatic ever since the DPP came into power. Hartzell is on the right track, and his unambiguous interim solution of SFPT status, One China policy, and TRA "civil rights" is politically palatable to everyone in Taiwan except the DPP.

Arms purchase bill is major dilemma, not easily resolved by political means

Jeff Geer Las Vegas, NV

 The pending U.S. arms purchase bill in the Legislature is a major political dilemma for Taiwan society that is not easily resolved by political means.

  In 1972, the Nixon doctrine on Taiwan emerged in the Shanghai Communique signed with Beijing.

  It simply held that U.S. Armed Forces would slowly withdraw from East Asia in Vietnam and Taiwan.

  The 1979 Shanghai Communique saw the unilateral termination of the U.S.-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty and the 1983 Shanghai Communique for declining U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
The Taiwan Relations Act has replaced the MDT, and TRA has still continued to assist the U.S. military industrial complex in the very profitable exports of their American-made military hardware to a supposedly former Chinese ally on Taiwan.

  While the Nixon doctrine is to reduce the self-defense capacity of Taiwan like it did to South Vietnam by 1975, the Taiwanese have still remained highly resilient to Beijing's geopolitical intentions under the 1972 Nixon doctrine.

  Part of the resilience of Taiwan's self-defense capacity is directly facilitated by a San Francisco Peace Treaty effect on Taiwan status like the bilateral U.S.-defense mechanisms for Japan after the World War II.

  Both of their post-war self-defense needs are directly related to the San Francisco Treaty as are their post-war economic success.

  This 1952 post-war treaty phenomena certainly irritates many American strategists because it does not emulate the multilateral NATO defense treaty system in the post-war era.
The Nixon doctrine of 1972 in its origins is a political irony, and yet this political subterfuge is systematically opposed to the 1952 San Francisco Treaty self-defense needs of Japan and Taiwan spinoff in the TRA.

  Even if the KMT does not pass the massive arms bill, the San Francisco system still remains in place for a steadfast self-defense of the Taiwan economy during the process of Japanese de colonization.

  Perhaps the Taiwanese politicians and businessmen should be more preoccupied with the business stability of the island economy and allow the "San Francisco system" to work in favor of their vested interests in the Taiwan separate customs territory.

  Dependence upon the American military for self-defense does not require massive expenditures to "bribe" Washington into political support of Taiwan.

  The vested self-interests of the San Francisco Treaty system are "life, liberty, and property" (Downes v. Bidwell, Neely v. Henkel) and these treaty-based rights inalienably accrue to the 23 million people of Taiwan without resorting to the political intrigues of the Nixon doctrine's "One China policy."

  The former Japanese people of Taiwan really need to invoke their vested rights of the San Francisco Treaty and refute the 1972 One China theory that they have no such treaty rights under the Nixon doctrine just because they are ethnic Chinese.

Back to op-ed @

Express Your View