During my time in Government, I twice had an encounter with a former Director of National Intelligence who made an odd comment. On both occasions, he said, “Taiwan is definitely going back to China,” as if Taiwan was anyone’s to give away. On both occasions, I stopped him and corrected him that such a statement was nowhere in U.S. Law nor even stated policy. Both times he retreated and attempted to clarify himself. I had great respect for him and had once received a rare award from him and found these very odd statements, especially the second time a year later when he made the same strong assertion again.
The elections in Taiwan are only a couple of days away on January 13, 2024, and the stakes are high. For years, Presidential Administrations have used “strategic ambiguity” in regard to Taiwan. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) was for years the law in effect on Taiwan and stated it was required for the United States “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.” What did this mean? It meant it was law that the U.S. would maintain a military large enough to resist any use of force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan. Not exactly a crystal-clear expression of U.S. Policy on Taiwan, but it did imply Taiwan was under the American nuclear umbrella, and with a large U.S. Navy and Air Force presence in the Western Pacific, the Chinese were deterred from taking Taiwan. Would the U.S. come to the aid of Taiwan if attacked? My interpretation was yes – but few of my colleagues were confident or advocated that.
Times have changed, and President Biden was told by President Xi of China when they met in San Francisco that China would re-unify Taiwan with the mainland, and then on December 31, 2023, President Xi said, “re-unification was inevitable”. This statement was possibly the most bellicose reference to Taiwan made by a Chinese leader in 30-plus years.
The Three Parties Running a Presidential Candidate in Taiwan
In the shadow of a wobbly U.S. President who may have taken large bribes from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and an assertive CCP Leader, Taiwan will be having an election on January 13, 2023. There are three parties vying for victor of the Presidency. First is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the populist, “Make Taiwan Great Again Party”. They have the presidency and the majority of the Legislative Yuan at this point. Several of their members are unabashedly Trump supporters, with one legislative candidate calling himself Wong Yip “Trump.” The Presidential Candidate is a former doctor, Lai Ching-te, and his Vice Presidential candidate is Hsiao Bi-Khim – both listed and sanctioned by the CCP as “troublemakers”.
The Koumintang (KMT) is the party that traces to Chiang Kai-shek, the problematic leader of the Chinese Nationalists who retreated to Taiwan in 1949, pursued by the CCP. Their candidate is Hou Yu-hi, a former police officer and mayor of New Taipei City. The modern KMT is considered a corrupt functionary and an advocate of unification with the mainland. There is a third party, the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), also headed by a former doctor, Ko Wen-je. This is a recently created party which is trying to establish a middle path between the DPP and the KMT. Ko and Hou considered a joint run to displace the DPP, but the discussions quickly collapsed. Polling showed a slight lead for the DPP as the January 13 election approached.
Who wrote the Foreign Affairs Article for the KMT?
At the major press conference for the KMT on January 11, 2024, an interesting article was presented as the compelling closing argument and the case for the KMT. It was a Foreign Affairs Article entitled “Taiwan’s Path Between Extremes.” It gave the immediate smell, taste, and feel of a ghost-written article and was very reminiscent of the Democrat strategy of 1984, where a vote for Reagan was a vote for war, and only Walter Mondale could ensure peace. Throughout the press conference, Huo repeated the same words as the 1984 campaign. This was the same campaign where Senator Ted Kennedy openly sought Soviet help to defeat Ronald Reagan.
The article talked tough on China but made it very clear that Taiwan was not seeking independence like “troublemaker” Lai. The defense platitudes in the article were a bit on the vague side and contradicted the KMT fight in the legislature over defense budget increases. Huo was asked at the Press Conference if he would continue the Taiwan Submarine program, which recently revealed its first production submarine. The answer by Huo was a non-answer, and overall, the contrived message in the presented article seemed like a planted story. Apparently, the Deep State has continued with Operation Mocking Bird.
Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation already and is no ones to give away
Foreign Affairs Magazine is where the globalists pontificate on their utopia. Perhaps 50 years ago, the magazine and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) were possibly a noble institution that had America’s best interests in mind. That was long ago. Now, it is tired, predictable, and does not have the interests of the American nor Taiwanese Citizen in mind. Triangulating the former DNI’s strong assertion that Taiwan was going back to China with the current article, the relentless goal of the globalists and deep staters is to give Taiwan to China.
Taiwan is already an independent, sovereign nation. It does not need anyone’s permission to be independent and sovereign. The globalists apparently view Taiwan as they did Czechoslovakia in 1938. Appease the German Leader and war will be averted. As we learned, the opposite was true. We’ll find out shortly if the globalist plan to give away Taiwan works. If their plan doesn’t work, that will be wonderful. If their plan works – it likely will mean war – exactly what they said would happen if the DPP had won the election.
The post Exclusive – Are Deep Staters and Globalists Trying to Give Away Taiwan? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.