.jpg)
Dennis Blair U.S. Navy photo
President Obama's new National Intelligence director is Dennis C. Blair, a retired U.S. Navy admiral. Blair has strong opinions about Taiwan but keeps to the songbook when pressed for details.
During his confirmation process, Blair was asked about his 2000 remark involving Taiwan and a "turd in the punchbowl of U.S./China relations." Blair managed to satisfy Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) by explaining he was talking about the actions of a Taiwanese official and not the island as a whole. When pressed for what his views are on the 'Taiwan question' Blair is quick to mouth that he supports U.S. policy.
Blair had to step away from a $75,000 paycheck from the National Bureau of Asian Research, a think-tank, to take the job as Obama's spy chief. Blair will no doubt be bringing with him the think-tank's newly minted 'special roundtable' report. One of the report's experts recommended, "The new President should faithfully implement the Taiwan Relations Act by deciding on arms sales based on Taiwan's needs."
Last week Raytheon Corporation announced a $154 million contract with Taiwan for Patriot missiles. Obama's pick for deputy Secretary of Defense is William J. Lynn, recently Raytheon's top lobbyist. Lynn's appointment is on hold while Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) explores Lynn's relationship with Raytheon. President Obama has waived a two-year cooling-off period banning lobbyists for Lynn.
Blair, who dodged Bond's question, might have referred the senator to the 'Report of an Independent Task Force' U.S.-China Relations: An Affirmative Agenda, A Responsible Course. Blair co-chaired the Task Force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and its recommendations signal what Blair is likely to advise Obama.
"Since Nixon's trip to China, Taiwan has dominated security relations between Washington and Beijing. The Task Force recommends that the United States…minimize the corrosive influence of the Taiwan question on U.S.-China relations."
In italics, Blair's report highlighted preservation of Taiwan's status quo of unresolved national status. "The policies of 'dual restraint' and 'dual assurance' should continue, deterring Chinese aggression and opposing Taiwan's steps toward independence while at the same time assuring China that the United States does not seek to perpetuate Taiwan's separation from the mainland and assuring Taiwan that the United States does not seek to pressure it into negotiating a final resolution."
Specific recommendations include, "Continuing to sell arms (including missile defense systems) to Taiwan designed to enhance its ability to deter a Chinese attack and resist Chinese coercion."
Further, Blair's study recommended the "United States should make clear to Taiwan's government that Washington does not support Taiwan independence and that Taiwan cannot count on U.S. military intervention if it provokes a crisis."
One fly in the ointment for Blair's 'status quo' policy is a pending lawsuit in the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals, Roger C.S. Lin, et al vs. United States that seeks judicial declaration of U.S. control of Taiwan under terms of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty that ended World War II with Japan.
Japan ceded control of the island, then called Formosa, to the United States. The U.S. in turn allowed the nationalist Republic of China to set up shop on the island as a 'Cold War' government-in-exile following the 1949 Communist revolution. However, the United States has never ceded the island to anyone thus creating the current 'Taiwan question'.
Comments
The Lin case is entertaining, but ridiculous. It is politically retrograde (Lin et al hold the colonialist position that the US is holding Taiwan in trust for China), ethically odious, and legally insane.
The US could not "cede" sovereignty in 1949 because it did not own the island; Japan did, and would for another three years, until the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect in 1952. Japan gave up sovereignty under that treaty, and no recipient of sovereignty was named. The island of Taiwan thus belongs to the people of Taiwan, not the US or China. The chain of control is quite clear; under international law an occupying power cannot attain legitimate control over a territory it occupies. Only Japan, the owner of Taiwan after 1895, can determine that, and it already has. It will be fun to watch the US government ignore the court, whatever its decision.
For those of us living on the democratic and independent island of Taiwan, the arms build up is a great idea, for it is weapons, and the US security commmitment, that keep China at a distance.
Frankly, speaking as a lifelong progressive, I am astounded and shamed that Taiwan has been completely ignored and abandoned by progressives.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan blog
there is a lesson to be learned for Dennis Blair that there was a Dutch government in Taiwan which was expelled in 1662 by one, a weaker one, Ming Dynasty of the 2 China governments, Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty.
Don't play with Chinese territory or it would end up taking over your territory.
China always took advantage of her aggressors/enemies by taking over their territory but except Japan. maybe without US involvement in WW2 by taking much bribe from Japan, Japan probably might be a territory shared among Soviet, China and Korea right now. So that is also one of the agony for Russia, China and Korea on US for being a sucker. Some day US might taste a bitterness of being exploited as Russia, China and Korea suffered..
near the end of WW2, Japan was planning to make a surrender to Soviet Union. when that information was known by US, US made an unnecessary mistakes by nuking 2 cities of Japan subsequently while demanding for a surrender from Japan, and that is the history of US exploiting the victory of Soviet Union, and took advantage of all that should belong to Soviet Union, China and Korea. how much China and Korea suffered because of Japan was never taken account properly, but US was the only nation compensated and bribed over completely by Japan not Soviet Union, China and Korea
Michael Turton's comments show a surprising lack of knowledge of international law. He frequently comments in online forums and weblogs that the sovereignty of Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese people, but such comments show a lack of ability to distinguish between "popular sovereignty" and "territorial sovereignty." The two are certainly not the same. No one doubts that the Taiwanese people have the right to vote in local elections, so they do have popular sovereignty. However, what they lack is territorial sovereignty, and that comes back to the specifications of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan under the terms of that treaty, and no recipient of sovereignty was named. However, the United States of America was designated as the principal occupying power.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!