Talk:Sino-American relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
Added a lot of (hopefully non controversial stuff).
--[[User:Roadrunner][Roadrunner]]
- try using ~~~ instead.
Here's the US-Taiwan relations text from the US state dept. Incorporate whatever is appropriate:
On January 1, 1979, the United States changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communiqué that announced the change, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The Joint Communiqué also stated that within this context the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan.
On April 10, 1979, President Carter signed into law the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which created domestic legal authority for the conduct of unofficial relations with Taiwan. U.S. commercial, cultural, and other interaction with the people on Taiwan is facilitated through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private nonprofit corporation. The Institute has its headquarters in the Washington, DC, area and has offices in Taipei and Kaohsiung. It is authorized to issue visas, accept passport applications, and provide assistance to U.S. citizens in Taiwan. A counterpart organization, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO), has been established by the Taiwan authorities. It has its headquarters in Taipei, the representative branch office in Washington, DC, and 11 other Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices (TECO) in the continental U.S. and Guam.
Following derecognition, the United States terminated its Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. However, the United States has continued the sale of appropriate defensive military equipment to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act which provides for such sales and which declares that peace and stability in the area are in U.S. interests. Sales of defensive military equipment also are consistent with the 1982 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communiqué. In this communiqué, the United States stated that "it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan" and that U.S. arms sales would "not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years," and that the U.S. intends "gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan." The P.R.C., in the 1982 communiqué, stated that its policy was to strive for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question.
U.S. commercial ties with Taiwan have been maintained and have expanded since 1979. Taiwan continues to enjoy Export-Import Bank financing, Overseas Private Investment Corporation guarantees, normal trade relations (NTR) status, and ready access to U.S. markets. In recent years, U.S. Government economic dealings with Taiwan have focused on expanding market access for American goods and services. AIT has been engaged in a series of trade negotiations, which have focused on protection of intellectual property rights, and issues relating to Taiwan's accession to the WTO.
Maintaining diplomatic relations with the P.R.C. has been recognized to be in the long-term interest of the United States by six consecutive administrations; however, maintaining strong, unofficial relations with Taiwan also is in the U.S. interest. The United States is committed to these efforts because they are important for America's global position and for peace and stability in Asia. In keeping with its one-China policy, the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. The U.S. supports Taiwan's membership in appropriate international organizations, such as the WTO, APEC forum, and the Asian Development Bank, where statehood is not a requirement for membership. In addition, the U.S. supports appropriate opportunities for Taiwan's voice to be heard in organizations where its membership is not possible.
This page says that alot of CIA and Pentagon people hated nixon for his dealings with China, and even were involved in getting him dumped out of office, by assisting in the Watergate investigations.
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/755_0_2_0/
---
the national security archive page has 7 documents about transciprts from nixon-enlai-kissinger conversations, while the link on the article only has 4 documents. they are both from the same website, i find this confusing.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/DOC_readers/kissinger/nixzhou/
Contents |
[edit] Energy
The 'World Energy Outlook for 2004' is published by the OECD's International Energy Agency.
It looks from the report that Sino-American good relations should include energy. While nowhere near America's demand for energy, China's consumption is exploding. One concern is the need for security of trade in the sea-lanes of the world. Perhaps more importantly though, both China and America should be worried about trade in energy with Russia. The Russian Federation is a major supplier of energy: the Energy Charter Treaty has been plugging away in vain for years to get the Federation to agree a safe transit discipline - largely for the assurance of investors. However recent developments there concerning the treatment of oil and gas as assets that should be sold strategically, and with Yukos, put further question marks on investing there. No doubt these problems will be solved soon.
[edit] war on terror
How has it created a common enemy? As far as I know Taliban had a presence in the Xinjiang seccessionist movement, but it's a nuisance to say the most and definitely not a threat. I think whoever wrote that played too much C&C Generals... :) -Hmib 04:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's not created a common threat per se, but caught in its own anti-terrorism language, Washington had to essentially turn a blind eye when China stepped up its crackdown on the Xinjiang "terrorists". The two powers are both concerned about the radicalization of Islam in Central Asia, although their cooperation on this has been made rockier by the perceived U.S.-supported revolution in Kyrgyzstan. —thames 13:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] PRC Propaganda?
This entry really seems to be written by someone more interested in running cover for the People's Republic than in telling a balanced story.
For example, there is no mention at all of the inconvenient Korean War, started with PRC complicity and waged cruely and unnecessarily for two years after lines became stabilized. Scott Adler 06:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I find that the POV is going the other way, but, be that as it may, POV is POV. This needs some serious reworking. -Yossarian
10:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed that there's POV issues here, regardless of one way or another. To my eye there's the typical Wikipedacaricaturization of the Ugly American. But where's the mention of the Cultural Revolution? China-towns in the US? American-born Chinese attitudes toward the PRC? Huge H1B populations in many major US metropolitan areas? --M a s 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flipped Map
Why is it that on the design of the map in this article, the flags are above their opposite countries, and the labels on the bottom are directly underneath these flags, but not underneath their corresponding countries on the map? Why isn't the American flag on the left side, with the Yellow "United States" label on the left as well, and the Chinese flag and label on the right side? Is it because of the Sino-American name? If so, I think that it would be better to have the flags and labels on their correct sides, despite the the order they come in the name. It would be easier to understand. BirdValiant 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm wondering the same. If someone can provide the source for that template so it can be changed. YCCHAN 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes
I made a number of changes to the article for the following reasons:
- Grammar, syntax, or spelling mistakes and/or better flow to the wording.
- More accurate internal links.
- Provide a little more historical background in the context of Cold War relations, particularly after the Nixon period.
- Reword some passages to make it sound a little more neutral.
Please let me know if you have any comments. BlizzardGhost 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Theories about future war
This article is generally upbeat about Sino-American relations, but there have been many speculations over the possibiliy of future conflicts fuelled by America's and China's competing demand for oil, and China's friendship with Iran. See this article, for example: [1], and all these books. I am not competent to write anything about this, but it seems someone with some expertise should write something. The Singing Badger 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
POV? I think the title of this article is either POV or at least inaccurately vague, as there are two "Chinas," and this one arbitrarily chooses the People's Republic of China. The relations with the Republic of China (or lack thereof, or unofficial via the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) have just as much a right to be under the name "Sino-American relations." Thoughts? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Issues in Sino-American relations today
Why do all the issues in these relations listed here only concern China itself? China obviously has many issues concerning the US as well. Also, should we rank the issues in order of importance? e.g. Taiwan is the #1 issue/concern today. Jsw663 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
