World peace, one issue at a time.
Two of the flashpoints that the Australian Government monitors are the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Strait. In the Taiwan issue, we are seeing the end result of decades of American meddling that could erupt into a full scale war. However there is a way to peacefully resolve the tensions, once and for all. But first, a history lesson.
In 1949 the nationalist government of mainland China fled to what is now known as Taiwan. The communists on the mainland were confident that they would soon defeat the nationalists in their entirety. And it would probably have happened, had the Americans not intervened to protect the nationalists. Why did they support them? There were a variety of reasons, but it could not have been because the nationalists were very fond of democracy. Taiwan did not become a democracy until 1996. More likely, it was because they professed hatred of communism. For an American government awash with taxpayer money and needing pet projects to spend it on, that was enough justification!
So that is the historical background. What has it led to? Well, it has effectively drawn out a conflict that should have ended over 50 years ago with the communists taking over Taiwan. The American intervention created a liability that the status quo inertia of political life has maintained indefinitely. It has made the region less stable because China has a long memory. American leaders, who are not competent enough to solve the problems besetting the people domestically, now face the challenging task of understanding a different culture and history and somehow weighing one set of vested interests against another. But there is a way out.
It is simply to stop supporting Taiwan and indicate the US will be completely neutral on the internal civil dispute. Once given the incentive to stop pontificating, Taiwan is likely to want to avoid war and will re-unite with China along the lines of Hong Kong in 1997. China has indicated that ‘peaceful reunification’ would involve allowing Taiwan to retain its institutions under the ‘one country, two systems’ approach. Except the sovereignty would change. If Taiwan were conceded, it is likely Sino-US relations would grow stronger. It would be a gesture of goodwill that would be remembered.
Problem solved. Potentially devastating war that Australia would probably be asked to contribute to, avoided! 
34 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
This might seem like the path of wisdom, but it has flaws. The major flaw is that such a success would embolden them to take over all of the South China Seas, instead of trying to do it by stealth. This would also encourage them to keep their governments big. Ideally, China should break up into smaller units.
This also fails on general libertarian principles. We are not majoritarians- numbers don’t make right! I believe in small governments, not big ones.
In fact, I sometimes call my system Pansecessionism, because every land-owner should be able to treat his or her land as their state- everyone should be able to secede! I can’t support your argument at all.
Given a choice between non-democratic nationalists and totalitarian communists I think America picked the correct side. In any case Taiwan is today a democracy. America does not owe the world a defence force and there are times when I am oposed to it’s adventurism abroad but there is no way I would encourage them to abandon Taiwan. China needs to concede that the future of Taiwan belongs to the people of Taiwan and abandon it’s territorial claim. China is the aggressor in this instance. And even if the Americans did sell out on Taiwan what would they gain in return?
When you say ‘Americans’ you must mean the American government. The American people would gain a lot. For instance, less American soldiers would stand the risk of dying & less tax money would go to subsidising Taiwan’s defence. Australia would also gain because we wouldn’t have to potentially follow them into another conflict.
China is willing to resolve the issue peacefully, and has been for some time. If Taiwan wants to go to war, let them. Taiwan is more capable now than they were back then, so maybe they’d stand a chance. That’s their business, not ours. A civil war doesn’t threaten the US national security, just like Vietnam and Korea didn’t. These places are halfway across the world.
The idea that the US should protect democracies for democracies sake is untenable, especially when they still send money to dictatorships around the world. Let the US get their own democracy right first. That’s hard enough.
It’s like saying it’s acceptable for China to come and start telling the Australian government how it should deal with the indigenous population (whether they should get their own state, etc). That’s meddling, and it is understandable China is unhappy.
Sukrit, China is the one trying to meddle in Taiwan’s affairs! The only reason it talks about resolving the issue ‘peacefully’ is because of the American interest in Taiwan. In the days of Mao, China found it useful to have taiwan as a constant grievance, a way of rallying the troops around the red flag. Now, I think that if America deserted Taiwan, China would invade quickly. Then it would think, ‘South China Sea has always been part of China. Just amazing coincidence that area has massive oil reserves’.
Whilst Australia is (probably) safe from Chinese aggression, the future would be a lot less rosy!
With regards to the Korean peninsula and Taiwan, I think a lot of the claims about American meddling are just hype.
Its really a stretch to suggest that America’s presence, or even token support and defense agreement with one side, is aggravating a conflict.
And Sukrit, you didn’t mention North Korea.. the most insane regime on the planet. Although the US presence there doesn’t resolve the conflict, removing US troops doesn’t exactly normalise everything between N.Korea and Japan/S.Korea
Having said that.. I’m quite sure that its safe for the U.S to withdraw from the Korean peninsula.
Japan is an economic powerhouse and could develop nuclear weapons within months if war loomed. South Korea is a booming economy. North Korea is a death camp with little wealth and no industry.
“we are seeing the end result of decades of American meddling that could erupt into a full scale war.”
Isn’t this the sort of comment one would expect at Green left weekly or Leftwrites? Get serious. Are you blind or mistakeningly keyed in the wrong site?
“So that is the historical background. What has it led to? Well, it has effectively drawn out a conflict that should have ended over 50 years ago with the communists taking over Taiwan. The American intervention created a liability that the status quo inertia of political life has maintained indefinitely.”
You total doofus, Taiwan is a democracy. Getting folded into China would mean that the right to freedom these people have would be eliminated.
How the fuck can you even call yourself a libertarian with these sorts of ideas? It’s about the most pathetic thread I have read on a libertarian site for a long while. As I said, it belongs on leftwrites.
it has effectively drawn out a conflict that should have ended over 50 years ago with the communists taking over Taiwan.
For fucks sake. What version of history are you smoking?
If Taiwan had been taken over by the communists, it would have suffered from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, in which millions of ordinary Chinese died. It would not now be a democracy or have a functioning legal system.
The US did bail out of Vietnam and look what happened – boat people, re-education camps, political prisons etc for decades. Have a chat to some Vietnamese about whether they think it was a great idea.
Using your logic, the US should have stayed out of Korea too. North Korea writ even larger. Yippee. I’m sure there are quite a few Koreans who would be prepared to help you understand history on that too.
To be honest I think it is high time that we recognise the status of Tawain as an independent nation. As Sukrit himself says they have been autonomous from China since 1949. Time for China to grow up and let go. Time for China to declare peace with it’s neighbours.
No Sukrit is not sayng anything of the sort. He doesn’t give a shit what happens to the Taiwnese as he is far more interested in bagging the Americans for helping Taiwan defend itself against a tyrannical regime. He’s an ambarrassment to libertarians and if he is a member of the party he ought to get the size 10.
I think it is high time that we recognise the status of Tawain as an independent nation
I absolutely agree.
It was a major mistake for Britain and Portugal to roll over on Hong Kong and Macao. It just gave the Chinese Communist Party bigger ideas.
China would be much better off if it became several countries, each striving to develop. Just as most of the former countries of the USSR are far better off.
Sukrit
Another quite absurd post. I agree wholeheartedly with JC – you are on the wrong blog.
Terje – absolutely right. Our support must come first for the democratic and independent nation of Taiwan. China has acted like a sulking bully for too long.
For the sake of the Taiwanese lucky enough to escape the horrors of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, thank goodness the US did intervene!
Agree with JC and Pommy.
Surkrit – how many US soldiers exactly have died in defence of Taiwan? Unlike the vain attempt to set up Arab democracies, the minimal intervention of the US in the Taiwan matter is actually of strategic interest and involves little cost – China and Russia will be future threats if things turn bad in those countries, there is no doubt about it, and far worse threats than when they were Communist. This is all about signalling that there are boundaries to what China can hope to do.
And Sukrit, this isn’t about protecting democracies for democracies sake. And it isn’t equivalent to China telling Australia how to treat its Aborigines. Taking a pro-Taiwan position isn’t about using foreign policy as foreign aid and shaping other societies. I am implacably opposed to such idealistic neo-con nonsense but it is a matter of telling China to ‘shove it’ and there are some thing it can’t get its way with. It is about deterring and discouraging future more brazen expansionism.
US intervention created the present stand-off. Both between North & South Korea and between China & Taiwan. The mistakes should be rectified in a peaceful manner. That might mean the US acts as a neutral mediator.
I suppose you guys think some foreign nation should have intervened in the American civil war too? That’d be fun! We could have had two countries carved out, and a hostile border dispute that would continue indefinitely at the cost of many lives and billions of dollars. What would the two Americas be called I wonder?
Heh, these attempts to carve out the world in an ideal image remind me of Stalinist central planning. That’s great if your goal is to run a foreign policy based solely upon testosterone and other emotional stuff… but not so good when it comes to actually achieving peaceful relations.
David/Pommy/JC/Jason/others:
I don’t see any point continuing this discussion as I don’t find people who have to resort to abuse very convincing. That’s why GMB is blocked – abuse is a waste of space. I’m sure you’re all knowledgable guys in general, but it might help to actually read a few books on libertarian foreign policy once in a while. That way I wouldn’t feel like the quality of debate here is worse than an arts tutorial at Melbourne University!
Try Ron Paul’s “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” for starters. From there you could graduate to some Murray Rothbard. A good book on resolving the North Korean situation from a libertarian perspective is called: “The Korean conundrum: America’s troubled relations with North and South Korea” by Ted Galen Carpenter.
Having thoroughly understood the libertarian viewpoint, you could then argue I’m not libertarian in my views with greater credibility.
I kept confusing a libertarian foreign policy with isolationism for a long time. See in this post where I was criticising another blogger on this site for being opposed to the Iraq war. Then I dug deeper. You guys should try that sometime!
Oh FFS Sukrit get a grip on yourself. You cry about people resorting to abuse when all I did was ask you a few questions you have no answer for like how many American soldiers have actually died for Taiwan. Then you misrepresent everyone’s arguments as being about ‘Stalinist central planning’ when I’ve said nothing of the kind. And I don’t give a fig what people who happen to call themselves libertarian have written about foreign policy. I start from what I think are reasomable premises, pursue what I think is a linear chain of reasoning and then arrive at libertarian conclusions most of the time suggesting there is something to it and if I don’t always arrive at what Rothbard or other libertarians think then so much the worse for libertarianism!
I never said anything about ‘carving the world in an ideal image’. My premise is that the best foreign policy to pursue is an amoral pragmatic foreign policy that serves our national interests in protecting our borders and reduces the probability of invasion. First and foremost we want peace but peace is impossible if you don’t carry a big stick. And carrying a big stick is useless if you don’t use it. The basic case for taking a stand in the China/Taiwan dispute *is* about preserving peace in the long run. It is basic game theory or if you want to get round to it, schoolyard psychology – you do not let a bully get what he wants if you can help it. It doesn’t matter if the bully is bullying someone else – he can turn on you next even if you look the other way. And China has the potential to be a far greater military threat now that it is harnessing the power of the market through its own brand of State directed capitalism than it ever was when Maoism rendered it an incompetently run pit. Because we have in the past made commitments to our allies including Taiwan there is a case even if purely of maintaining precedent of standing by your allies or at least not running away just because their predators so much as sneeze. If we were to change our policy on our own terms that would be a different matter but if we are doing it just to placate China then that does not lead to peace in the long run -it signifies weakness to the bully.
Thankyou Jason.
Sukrit – grow up, FFS.
Sukrit,
If not for emancipation it is possible that France and Britian would have intervened in the US civil war to defend the right of the south to secede. The moral right of people not to be slaves trumped the right of states to secede. Or at least that is how it was seen in many quarters.
Regards,
Terje.
Sukrit;
Why should we read books on libertarian foreign policy?, we all know that liberty carries within itself an obligation to it’s defense. That defense is best done on some other poor bastards turf.
Just because Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard might say something does not make it true or define it as libertarian. I find libertarian principles tend to go missing when it comes to foreign policy issues between nation states. That’s why I prefer to stick with libertarian concerns about individuals and matters affecting their coercion.
On that basis I have no trouble disagreeing with your analysis on US intervention. But for intervention in Korea, for example, millions of Koreans would be dead and many more starving. That’s as coercive as you can get.
I acknowledge there was an element of coercion involved in paying taxes to fight the North Koreans and prevent the coercion. But it’s often necessary to choose between two alternatives that both involve coercion.
The same applies to China and Taiwan. US taxpayers endure a certain amount of coercion, in the form of taxes, to fund the US navy’s shield over Taiwan. The greater coercion is the death, misery and destruction that would be inflicted if the Chinese Communist Party invaded Taiwan. To individual Taiwanese, I emphasise, to whom libertarian principles clearly apply.
I suspect you’ve merely got it in for George Bush and the US. Like the previous French government, you support the opposite of whatever they support. There’s nothing libertarian about it.
Sukrit
Nice instincts you show Sukrit. The first hint of crticism you’re off banning 1/2 the audience.
You wrote a piece that quite frankly is undeserving on a libertarian blog.
Nothing personal, but i find your views on liberty quite disturbing.
People don’t deserve to be condemned to exist in slave like existence that was Mao’s China.
The US did the right thing in Korea and is doing the right thing supporting Taiwan. Those people deserve our support.
Maybe I should not have personalized my criticsim so much, but I don’t won’t hold back what i think of these views.
You can be as isolationist as you like but that doesn’t mean we should be indifferent to suffering caused by totalitarian punks. Mao was a thug. Kim Jong ill is the mini me to Mao.
I’m sure we can discuss this in a civilised manner. My own opinion is that Taiwan should have the right to be totally independent, but China has already passed a law saying that any such declaration would be illegal, and they would invade to bring the island back to the motherland.
The trouble is Chinese history. They always have the past before them, as their own idioms put it. Their history shows that peace and prosperity only happen when the Government is STRONG! As heirs to the oldest continuous civilisation, they are stuck with those habits of mind, and the fear of lose of face by reversing yourself- could any government official now say ‘Taiwan can do what it likes’ without people thinking that China must be weak?
Dear all,
Alright I will give it one more shot. I should have posted this before so people could get a full sense of where I’m coming from.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-313.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb82.pdf
In the links above, Ted Carpenter has offered a way out while remaining consistent with libertarian principles. These are the real libertarian principles I’m talking about… not the ones people are making up on the run to suit their own personal moral beliefs about protecting people on the other side of the world.
Some of the commentators above don’t seem to realise the implications of maintaining a hostile position towards a nuclear power over an island that serves little national security interest to the US. That is WORSE for global security than just allowing Taiwan to defend itself – it draws in more countries to a civil war.
It is not about appeasement. China would face severe ostracism if it chose the military option. But pressure can be applied diplomatically without risking American/Australian/other Western allies’ lives.
They are talking about concluding a peace treaty between N. Korea & South Korea at the moment. I think something similar can be achived with China through the UN. They are much more reasonable than they were under Mao, in case people had not noticed.
No matter – if China were to ever attack Taiwan, the US would probably not intervene despite their rhetoric. I do believe any American President would value the lives of Americans more than Taiwanese, and wouldn’t be so foolish as to risk Washington for Taipei.
P.S. and the UN wouldn’t do a thing because Taiwan isn’t allowed to be recognised as a country
So either way, the ball is in China’s court. They have the advantage. It’s 1-0 to China. And other sports analogies.
Sukrit,
You’re keen for us to ignore what China does because it’s a long way away and has little to do with our local affairs. In short you’re suggesting we just mind our own business and let them do what they want so long as they don’t threaten us. However that logic should then apply equally to other countries. Countries like the USA for instance. Let them torment China with regards to Taiwan. It’s not our businees and it’s far away. Or does the logic not apply to foreign powers that speak our language and share our cultural heritage?
Regards,
Terje.
Terje:
Finally! Someone understood my point!
To answer your question – yes, if the US wants to torment China and risk a war with a nuclear power that’s fine. None of Australia’s concern…except in the case of Taiwan I believe former Deputy Secr of State Richard Armitage made a statement saying the US would ‘expect’ Australia to get involved if there was ever a war to defend Taiwan. So it is our concern if the US wants to get involved in another Vietnam/Korea style conflict against China.
But if Australia was under no pressure to contribute and could sit back and neutrally assess the risk to our own security, then this might end up an intellectual exercise. It is the American people who should be worrying, and that’s really the reason Ron Paul is running on a platform that includes not being so pro-Taiwan but being more pro-American ‘national interest’.
One thing I would support the US doing is lifting any remaining restrictions on arms sales to Taiwan, even if this makes China mad.
There is no harm in selling Taiwan what it needs to defend itself (at a profit of course, not charity by taxpayers). That way it increases the cost for China to attack militarily. That is the point Carpenter makes in the article above. Taiwan is economically advanced. It can deter China and defend itself if it is serious about being independent, but it shouldn’t be at the cost of American lives and dollars. It should be Taiwanese lives & dollars, because it’s their civil war, not anyone else’s.
As I alluded in #2 I don’t think it is in our strategic interest to encourage such a view in America. We benefit from having Chinas territorial ambitions checked. Pure self interest would suggest that we should encourage the Americans to maintain this stand off (even if it’s not good for America). Of course we all want to avoid an actual war but thats a different matter.
It should be Taiwanese lives & dollars, because it’s their civil war, not anyone else’s.
The civil war ended in any practical sense a long time ago, and Taiwan has established itself as a sustainable democratic country. To continue to call it a ‘civil war’ is just semantics, and an apologism for China to try to control people who don’t want or need them.
Control your statism, Sukrit.
Finally someone understood your point?
You mean the quotes I extracted from you post were wrong? huh?
I agree somewhat with Sukrit but he has ran with original idea all the way from Melbourne to Broome.
Should the US pull out where it can? Of course.
So I think the US should pull out of Western Europe (who are they fighting here?), Korea and most of the Middle East. Now the US shouldn’t stop exchange programmes between it’s allies. It still has a lot of questionable deployments that drain combat operations.
I would not withdraw them from Iraq or Afghanistan until they had won decisively.
As for Taiwan, if Taiwan had the same level of defence capabilities as Japan and South Korea, they should be cut loose, the US and the rest of APEC could then act as intermediaries between the two for peace or when China junks the authoritarians, (possible) reunification. But I don’t think they do. Their air defence fighters, for example, are inferior copies of the F-16. Korea and Japan has real F-15 and F-16s, real ones too.
Both Taiwan and China are capitalist and nationalists. China is authoritarian, Taiwan is not. The US is potentially preventing a war and are morally supporting the right side, which as long as the support continues, China will not attack. Relations and trade links should be normalised as was done in the Korean penisula in the late 1990s to try and minimise the role of any US alliance and emplace political disincentives for the Chinese to have an aggressive policy to Taiwan.
Start the story earlier where Marshall makes Chiang Kai Shek sit on his hands when he could have destroyed Mao.
Or we could go to where Truman denied his South Korean allies heavy weaponry because he thought they might break the peace. The Korean war wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t make that terrible mistake.
Or we could go to when the Korean war was at its height. And Truman has the navy keeping Taiwan and China apart. Whereas he could have had the Taiwanese operating on the mainland as MacArthur would have wanted.
Don’t be an inside-outsky Sukrit. The point is we have to win these things and all of these wars were easily winnable but for Western-leftists deciding that they didn’t want the Americans to win.