Talk:Taiwan Relations Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taiwan Relations Act is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwanese politics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the politics of Taiwan. If you would like to participate, please join the project
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.


Removed

However, the validity of this arguement highly depends on whehter one regards Taiwan as part of China or regards Taiwan's legal status is yet determined after WWII.

The statement "The PRC does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as it is viewed by them as 'an unwarranted intrusion by the USA into the internal affairs of China.'" is NPOV on its own because the statement is attributed to the PRC. It is even quoted (though I don't know where this quote was pulled from." One's opinion is entirely irrelevant. The PRC does not act based on some random Taiwanese guy's opinion. It acts on what it believe and asserts, and that is what we are trying to show. By quoting the PRC position, we are definately not agreeeing to it. Please note the difference.--Jiang 05:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] PRC

- From the view of PRC, issue of Taiwan is an unfinished business of Chinese Unification by the PRC after 1949, given the fact of PRC Anti Secession Law which was drafted in 2005.

- There is no such thing as "unfinished business of Chinese Unification" since the ROC, formed in 1911 (as opposed to PRC, formed 1949) is a separate entity and itself does not recognize the legitimacy of PRC, and obviously something formed at a later date cannot RE-UNITE something that it has never owned, in this case, Taiwan. Therefore, PRC's "anti-Secession Act" is a show for its own people and a joke for those who matter, as PRC had itself seceded from the ROC, and has no right to claim ROC territories, unless, of course, that we replace "unification" with a term more suitable of describing what the PRC is doing against the ROC: coup d'etat. My suggestion is that we should keep PRC's opinion out of the TRA article itself, and organize it into a separate page so people don't mistake a nation's military aggression for global political consensus.

[edit] Removed link

This website is somewhat crankish... If someone thinks this is notable enough to warrant an article then it should be a separate article.

Roadrunner 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Meaning of TRA

TRA defines Taiwan as a state, but does that mean Taiwan is only and would becoming like a state under TRA (recognized as ROC before the formation of TRA)? Since TRA is an act passed by the American Congress, so does that mean Taiwan is a puppet state under US control?

If the US merely acknowledges PRC's position to Taiwan, why does the US decides not to have diplomatic tie with Taiwan and establish embassy there in exchange with the AIT?

The act does not have intervention wordings so it is more like a foreign assistance act, if so, why does the US not to give unconditional support on the arms and weapons as Taiwan needed?

- Yes, and I don't see how these questions contribute to the discussion, please stop nonsensical speculations and stick to the facts and the articles included by the TRA.

To sum up, this act is formulated for the balance of US in Asia and US interest across the Taiwan Strait, not for either side of the Taiwan Strait.


at the end of the document, it defines "Taiwan" as: the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands, corporations and other entities and associations created or organized under the laws applied on those islands, and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof).
why would US give unconditional support if it doesn't benefit them? the act only require US to sell, the taipei must still agree to pay of them in order for US to sell...
yes, it was really a cold war leftover... Akinkhoo 15:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Taiwan

Why does the article go to great lengths to deny that american forces will defend taiwan in the event of an armed assualt by China? This is totally false and is in contrast to the act itself as well as the interpretation of every major media outlet. Looks like this article has been cleansed by the PRC....Macutty (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was too bad, certainly not as bad as it would be if the PRC had gotten a hold on it, but I did make some changes to make it less pushy and to mention the strategic ambiguity policy.Readin (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The term "strategic ambiguity' is no longer valid in describing the US policy towards taiwan as quoted here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl808.cfm . What are our thoughts on this and how do you thinnk it should be reflected in the article? Macutty (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I don't time right now for more thorough research. Very quickly though, the article you link to is from 2003. At the beginning of the Bush administration, he said that the U.S. would defend Taiwan. However I believe (but can't promise) that he has since then been less clear and has returned to strategic ambiguity. Readin (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)