Herzlich willkommen bei Bernd Holzfuss

Institut für WirkKommunikation

● NLP ● Coaching ● Seminare ● Trainings
● NLP-Ausbildungen im Rhein-Main Gebiet

NLP Seminarzentrum Rhein-Main

Hergershäuser Straße 6 * 64832 Babenhausen
Tel.: 06073/60 89 217, Fax: 06071/60 89 218

info@nlp-ausbildung-holzfuss.de
www.nlp-ausbildung-holzfuss.de

 

Einladung zur Zusammenarbeit und zum fachlichen Austausch

Dieser NLP Blog handelt von wirkungsvollen Modellen der menschlichen Kommunikation im beruflichen und privaten Bereich.

Ihre aktive Beteiligung auf dieser Seite in Form von Kommentaren und eigenen Beiträgen ist uns sehr willkommen.

NLP-Seminar- und Ausbildungs-Angebote

NLP-Coaching und Neuro-Linguistische Psychotherapie.

Us Taiwan Defense Agreement

The bottom line is that there is little difference between the U.S. defense commitment to Japan (and Korea and the Philippines) and its commitments to Taiwan. In any case, the United States declares that certain actions pose a threat to „peace and security“ and promises to use its constitutional processes to formulate a response. While the guarantees for Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand are certainly stronger than those for Taiwan, they are hardly stronger. The Government of the Republic of China grants the right to dispose of the land, air and naval forces of the United States in and around Taiwan and the Pescadores, and the Government of the United States of America accepts the right necessary for its defence as determined by mutual agreement. „The confusion is that there is no agreement on Taiwan, let alone agreement on everything related to Taiwan,“ Nachman said. But „it`s frustrating to see that the language isn`t flawlessly accurate at a time when it really should be,“ he added. „They think Biden`s Taiwan deal is further proof that Taiwan is just a chess piece on the chessboard, suggesting that Taiwan has no say in its own future because the deal is only between Xi and Biden,“ he said. For example, Article V of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty simply states that „each party recognizes that an armed attack on any of the parties“ in the territories administered by Japan „would be dangerous to its own peace and security.“ The United States and Japan agree that each country would „act to counter the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.“ The same wording is found in similar provisions of the defence treaties between Korea, the Philippines and Australia and New Zealand. The issue was raised on Tuesday when U.S. President Joe Biden told reporters that he and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping had agreed to „abide by the Taiwan agreement,“ which left many people around the world scratching their heads. For the purposes of articles II and V, „territories“ and „territories“ for the Republic of China Taiwan and the Pescadores are defined; and, in the case of the United States of America, the Island Territories of the Western Pacific under their jurisdiction.

The provisions of Articles II and V shall apply to the other territories, which may be determined by mutual agreement. Ultimately, the core of any security guarantee is not legal obligation, but political will. Legally, Taiwan has no iron U.S. security guarantee against a Chinese attack, but the same goes for almost everyone – including NATO. Whether the United States comes to defend Taiwan or any other country depends largely on issues of diplomacy, military facts, and political will. „I spoke to Xi about Taiwan,“ Biden told reporters when asked about China`s provocative actions. „We agree – we will abide by the Taiwan agreement. There you go. And we`ve made it clear that I don`t think he should do anything other than stick to the deal.

Under the Carter administration, the United States changed the official recognition of the Taipei government to the Beijing government. Since then, U.S. relations with China and Taiwan have been dictated by several diplomatic agreements, as well as the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. The Sino-American Treaty of Mutual Defense (中美共同防禦條約), officially the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China (中華民國與美利堅合眾國間共同防禦條約), was a defense pact between the United States of America and the Republic of China, which entered into force from 1955 to 1980. It essentially prevented the People`s Republic of China from seizing the island of Taiwan. Some of its content was transferred to the 1979 Taiwan Relations Law. Sections 2 and 3 of the TRA contain the main provisions relating to Taiwan`s military defence. Article 2 states, under U.S. policy, that the U.S.

expects „Taiwan`s future to be determined by peaceful means,“ that „any attempt to determine Taiwan`s future by non-peaceful means, including boycotts or embargoes, constitutes a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific,“ and „maintains the ability of the United States to oppose any use of violence or other forms of coercion, which would endanger the security or the social or economic system of the Taiwanese people.“ US President Joe Biden`s claim of a „deal with Taiwan“ is confusing as Beijing increases military pressure on Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee that the United States will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, nor does it abandon it, as its primary purpose is to ensure that U.S. policy on Taiwan is not unilaterally altered by the president, and to ensure that any decision to defend Taiwan is made with congressional approval. The law states that „the United States shall provide Taiwan with such defense items and defense services in the quantity necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities.“ However, the decision on the type and amount of defense services America will provide to Taiwan will be made by the president and Congress. The US policy has been called „strategic ambiguity“ and is aimed at deterring Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence and preventing the PRC from unilaterally uniting Taiwan with the PRC. The real practical difference is probably that the Treaty of Japan would respect the right to collective self-defense in the Charter of the United Nations, while the TRA would not. But because the international legality of a U.S. defense of Taiwan is questionable at best, the most pertinent question is what U.S. law requires. At first glance, the TRA seems to need only the United States. Sell defense equipment so that Taiwan can maintain self-defense and the president informs Congress of any threat to Taiwan`s security.

When China launches a military attack, the president is only required by law to „determine appropriate measures in accordance with constitutional processes.“ This requirement applies to executive-legislative consultations and appears to be little of an obligation, as Bernstein claims, to „intervene when China launches an armed attack on Taiwan.“ Section 3 implements this policy by requiring the United States Government to „provide Taiwan with such defense items and defense services in the quantity necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capability.“ It further required the president to „immediately inform Congress of any threat to the security or social or economic system of the Taiwanese people and any resulting threat to the interests of the United States.“ Finally, the TRA requires that „the President and Congress, in accordance with constitutional processes, determine the appropriate measures taken by the United States in response to such a threat.“ The law does not recognize the terminology of the „Republic of China“ after January 1, 1979, but uses the terminology of „government agencies in Taiwan“. Geographically, and echoing the similar content of the 1955 Defense Treaty, it defines the term „Taiwan“ as encompassing the island of Taiwan (the main island) and the Pescadores (Penghu), depending on the context. .

Trackback von deiner Website.

Blogbetreiber:

Bernd Holzfuss - NLP-Institut für WirkKommunikation ● NLP ● Coaching ● Seminare ● Trainings ● NLP Ausbildungen
NLP Seminarzentrum Rhein-Main
Hergershäuser Straße 6 * 64832 Babenhausen / Sickenhofen