Beyond “Don’t concede more on Taiwan 美對台立場不能再讓步於中國”

I was reading this article called Don’t concede more on Taiwan by Hisahiko Okazaki published on Friday, Nov 06, 2009, Page 8 at the Taipei Times. It actually talked about how President Clinton shifted Taiwan’s status-quo, an important history lesson for Taiwanese from 1998 to 2009. Hisahiko Okazaki has served as the Japanese ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Thailand. He now runs the Okazaki Institute, a think tank in Tokyo. This piece was first published in ACFR News Group No.1528, an e-mail publication of The American Committees on Foreign Relations, on Oct. 27, 2009.

The following are the excerpts from the above link which described how Taiwan’s status-quo has been slowly shifted since President Clinton’s era:

Then on the eve of the President’s visit, stories began to circulate that the President was going to commit ‘three NOs,” that the US would oppose Taiwan independence, one-China-one-Taiwan policy and Taiwan’s formal membership in state-based international organizations. Fortunately, there was no mention of “three NOs” in the joint press conference, nor in the major policy speech at the Beijing University. Then the volte-face came. Dropping by in Shanghai, the President declared the “three NO’s” in a dialogue with Chinese intellectuals on a TV show.

Although the US Congress quickly rejected the commitment through resolutions of both Houses, China may still view the remark as an official commitment of the President of the United States and may quite likely expect President Obama to reconfirm it.

It is not difficult at all to suspect that there were some disgraceful deals behind the scenes. The date of the visit, to start with, is believed to have been besought by the US to turn attention away from a domestic scandal, and that indebted the US to say three NOs and bypass Japan and Korea while making the longest trip that Clinton made to a single country. The topics to be discussed during the Shanghai TV interview, which had originally been planned to concentrate on cultural affairs, seemed to have been changed at short notice.

The Chinese-language translation of the above article is also available.

The above article led me to read some other very important articles, which I will mention them from the latest to the oldest.

First, what did Secretary of State H. Clinton do this past February in Beijing?

Read Clinton’s China Visit Opens Door on Climate Change by Orville Schell.

The 2^nd last paragraph of the article has this:

Long after the current economic crisis is over, the situation in Tibet has been calmed, arguments over currency exchange have been forgotten, and the Taiwan split has been resolved, the world will only be beginning to confront the daunting effects of climate change. To date, the U.S. and China have been largely out of the game of climate change solutions. Without our two countries whole-heartedly in the game, there is, honestly speaking, no meaningful game being played.

What does it mean by this phrase “the Taiwan split has been resolved”?

Whatever it means, it is up to everyone’s guess! Was Taiwan bargained away without our knowledge? Is president Obama’s upcoming trip to China, for the subject of Taiwan, simply to rubber stamp the arrangement already made earlier between H. Clinton and China’s leaders in February?

Now another article back in 2003.

An article by Charles R. Smith published on Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2003 would raise some eyebrows for sure because it gave some explanations why China could advance so quickly in its military science.

Declassified documents showed that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat. (read the entire article…)

And one could find out how President Clinton had kowtowed to China’s demand back in 1998 by reading As Summit Approaches, Clinton Follows China’s Lead written by Richard Halloran just before Clinton’s trip.

The Chinese had induced Mr. Clinton to spend nine days in China, from June 25 to July 3, 1998 (just in time to return home for the July 4^th national holiday), longer than any other U.S. president’s trip to China before, and had requested Clinton to fly directly from US soil to Beijing by-passing Japan, an important ally of US in Asia. China also made Clinton appeared in Tiananmen Square symbolizing his assertion of China’s handling of the dissidence was right, thereby, bringing an end to the controversy in China's history.

I conclude that Hisahiko Okazaki’s recent article is backed up by all my other reading I have done.

Twenty three million people’s fate was nothing when a politician had to diffuse attention from his personal scandal. And I don’t understand how anyone can be accused of spying when military secrets can be “approved” officially to be transferred abroad.

Finally, Chinese dissidents may be expecting yet another time’s lock-ups or house arrests for Obama’s upcoming visit since that had been the case when the UK’s Telegraph reported on Feb. 21 2009 by David Eimer that Hillary Clinton China visit blamed for the detention of activists.

If you haven’t read the links, go ahead and read them now because history has taught us many lessons.