Export translations

Settings

Group

Language

Format

Export for off-line translation

Export in native format

Export in CSV format

<languages />
[[File:Taiwan'sReliefMap-3.jpg|thumb|Map of Taiwan]]
In 1945 at the conclusion of World War II, China was in the midst of a civil war. Nationalist forces led by [[Chiang Kai-shek]] outnumbered the Communist forces led by [[Mao Tse-tung]] five to one. By 1949 the situation was reversed: the Nationalists had retreated to the island of Formosa (Taiwan) and Mao controlled the mainland.

The State Department argued that the Nationalists lost because they were corrupt, brutal and lacked popular support and that the Communists won because the people supported them. They said that we gave the Nationalists all the aid that we could but that we simply could not turn back the force of history and the will of the people. The truth is that while the Nationalists had their flaws, they were, without a doubt, preferable to the Communists.

Professor Anthony Kubek of the University of Dallas documents how the Truman administration manipulated the situation: First, Harry Truman forced the Nationalists to form a coalition with the Communists, then he gave them inadequate aid, embargoed it after they had grown to depend on it and finally, when it looked like the Nationalists were going to lose, declared a “hands off” policy and did nothing. It is unclear whether Truman fully understood the effects of his policy, but the clique of Mao supporters whom he appointed to the State Department’s Office of Far Eastern Affairs undoubtedly did.<ref>Anthony Kubek, ''How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941–1949'' (New York: Twin Circle Publishing, 1972), pp. 321–22, 335.</ref>

== America’s betrayal of the Chinese Nationalists ==

Truman’s step-by-step betrayal of the Chinese is worth studying. At the end of 1945 he appointed Gen. George C. Marshall his special representative in China and instructed him to threaten to cut off United States aid unless Chiang declared a truce with Mao and began negotiations to form a coalition government in which the Communists were represented.

Demanding a position in a coalition government is a textbook Communist ploy. Characteristically, after they achieve a splinter position in a government, they go on to eliminate their opponents. Chiang was trying to show his good faith to the Americans, so he not only agreed to a truce but also began reducing his armed forces in the interests of peace and democracy. He deactivated 180 divisions out of a 300-division army and created six divisions with mixed Communist and Nationalist troops. He also began negotiations with Mao to allow him a position in a new government.

In March 1946 the Communists broke the truce by pouring troops into Manchuria. The Nationalists retaliated and continued to advance, reasoning that the truce had been broken by the Communists. The United States blamed Chiang Kai-shek and responded to the incident by embargoing American arms and canceling a $500 million American loan. This was the turning point in the war between the freedom fighters and the Lightbearers of the motherland of China and the Communist hordes under the dominant minority leadership of the ruthless fallen ones.

Henceforth, the Nationalists received little U.S. aid while the Soviets aided Mao’s forces. Stalin gave Mao all the weapons and equipment left in Manchuria by 700,000 surrendering Japanese troops at the end of World War II as well as nearly 600 shiploads of unused American lend-lease equipment which we had given the Soviets to fight the Japanese.<ref>Ibid., pp. 337, 387.</ref> The United States government did not protest!

Meanwhile, American aid to the Nationalists since 1945 had been a betrayal from start to finish. The State Department tried to convince the American public that they had done everything possible to save the Nationalist government. In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson<ref>It is noteworthy that while an undergraduate at Yale University, Acheson was a member of Scroll and Key, an elite senior society that is apparently affiliated with Skull and Bones, another society on the Yale campus, many of whose members have played a leading role in providing Western support for the Soviet empire. Although he allegedly became an anti-Communist in 1945, he blocked efforts to fire accused Communists from the State Department in 1949–50. He remarked, “I will not turn my back on Alger Hiss.” Hiss was a high-ranking State Department official who was accused of spying for the Soviet Union and was convicted of perjury and sentenced to five years in prison.</ref> tried to prove that we had given them $2 billion worth of aid between 1945 and 1949 and that further aid would not change the situation. However, Sen. Pat McCarran proved that Acheson’s figures were “misleading and false,” concluding that United States aid totaled only $110 million.<ref>Ibid., pp. 397, 406.</ref> The fact is that after World War II, the U.S. government gave only token aid to the Nationalists and continually undermined them.

Under Marshall’s embargo the Nationalists could not get gasoline for the air force we had given them. Marshall had equipped 33 of the Nationalists’ best divisions with American 30-caliber rifles. Then he embargoed 30-caliber ammunition.

In addition, our lend-lease supplies were inadequate. Col. L. B. Moody said that we didn’t send the Nationalists what they really needed, which was small arms and ammunition. What we sent, Moody said, were “billions of moldy cigarettes, blown-up guns and junk bombs and disabled vehicles from the Pacific islands."<ref>Ibid., p. 405.</ref> Furthermore, as Kubek writes, “Lend-lease equipment intended for China [was] either destroyed or dumped into the India Ocean."<ref>Ibid., p. 396.</ref>

America’s aid cut-off had disastrous results for the Nationalists. Professor Kubek writes that

<blockquote>General George E. Stratemeyer ... testified before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee that he flew 90,000 Chinese troops north.... We promised we would supply them, but the troops were left there, stranded, at the mercy of the Communists. [Stratemeyer testified,] “They had no ammunition, they had no spare parts, they couldn’t fight. They had to live, so the Communists took them over, and those they didn’t kill, I think they forced into their services.”<ref>Ibid., p. 401.</ref></blockquote>

Under the embargo the Nationalists were running out of everything. The ''New York Times'' reported on June 22, 1947, that their guns were so worn and burned that “bullets fell through them to the ground.”<ref>Ibid., p. 338.</ref> Other arms lacked crucial parts. Professor Kubek says that some gun shipments reached China without bolts. They were therefore useless.

In April of 1948 Congress appropriated $125 million in military aid to the Nationalists. But due to Defense and State Department delays the first shipment of American arms did not arrive in Shanghai until seven months later. By that time it was too late for Chiang Kai-shek.

These aid “mix-ups” are the beginning of a disturbing pattern in the history of United States support for anti-Communist resistance movements. One mix-up can be a mistake but we must look for other motives when it happens repeatedly.

== The Nationalists’ retreat to Taiwan ==

The Nationalist forces retreated to Taiwan, completing their withdrawal December 7, 1949. The West hailed Mao as a potential moderate, a Nationalist figure who would not necessarily be aligned with Moscow. But, since the Communists established the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949 (thanks to the government of the United States of America), they have killed from 33 to 61 million Chinese, according to a report released by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security in 1971.<ref>U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, ''The Human Cost of Communism in China,'' 92d Cong., 1st sess., 1971, p. 16. An often-quoted figure says Mao killed 34 to 64 million Chinese. This includes those killed by the Communists prior to 1949.</ref>

Meanwhile, in Taiwan, freedom reigned, and free trade and commerce built a strong capitalist nation, a free people and those who are able to understand the path of the Master/disciple relationship.

== Recognition of the People’s Republic of China ==

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected president and on December 15, 1978, he announced that the United States was establishing diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) after 30 years of nonrecognition.

On December 15, 1978, President Carter announced simultaneously with officials in Peking that after 30 years of nonrecognition, diplomatic relations between the PRC and the U.S. would be formally established as of January 1, 1979. The U.S. also agreed to sever diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), which it had previously recognized as the sole legal government of China, and to terminate the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan at the end of 1979. In his nationally televised speech, Carter said that by recognizing the PRC as the single government of China, “we are recognizing simple reality.” He added that the U.S. would continue to maintain “cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.”

The first major step in publicly acknowledging the legitimacy of the Communist regime had come in 1972 with the signing of the Shanghai Communiqué by the U.S. and Peking at the conclusion of President Nixon’s trip to China. In that communiqué the U.S. pledged to reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as “tension in the area diminishes.” But even though efforts toward normalization of relations had been underway for some time, Carter’s announcement still came as a surprise to many. It drew angry responses from members of Congress who complained that the president had not informed them of his actions—despite the fact that Congress had earlier adopted a resolution specifically instructing the president to consult them before abrogating the Taiwan defense treaty. Senator Barry Goldwater and 25 other legislators actually contested the constitutionality of the president’s unilateral move in a legal suit, but their complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Court on December 13, 1979.

In addition, many were concerned that Carter had not properly provided for the security of Taiwan. China, in fact, never pledged in the 1978 joint communiqué to refrain from using force against Taiwan. The PRC’s long-standing position that the “liberation” of Taiwan by peaceful or nonpeaceful means did not involve the U.S. was reiterated by the Chinese in their normalization statement: “As for the way of bringing Taiwan back to the embrace of the motherland and reunifying the country, it is entirely China’s internal affair.”

The Nationalist government on Taiwan remained firm in its response to the agreement, declaring:

<blockquote>The United States, by extending diplomatic recognition to the Chinese Communist regime, which owes its very existence to terror and suppression, is not in conformity with its professed position of safeguarding human rights and strengthening the capability of democratic nations to resist the totalitarian dictatorship. The move is tantamount to denying the hundreds of millions of enslaved peoples on the Chinese mainland of their hope for an early restoration of freedom. Viewed from whatever aspect, the move by the United States constitutes a great setback to human freedom and democratic institutions.... Under whatever circumstances, the Republic of China shall neither negotiate with the Communist Chinese regime, nor compromise with Communism, and it shall never give up its sacred task of recovering the mainland and delivering the compatriots there.</blockquote>

To offset what was considered by some to be a betrayal of Taiwan in the 1978 communiqué, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, signed into law on April 10, 1979. It said:

<blockquote>It is the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.</blockquote>

In addition, it promised to provide the defensive arms necessary for Taiwan to “maintain a sufficient self-defense capability” and stated that the U.S. would “maintain the capacity” to, in effect, resist any use of force by the PRC to gain control of Taiwan.

After 1978, the PRC began to issue a series of proposals aimed at peaceful “reunification of the motherland.” The Nine-Point Proposal of September 30, 1981, for instance, offered Taiwan a “high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region” that would retain its armed forces and further promised that “the central government will not interfere with local affairs on Taiwan”—an offer flatly rejected by the Republic of China.

In a significant development intended to ease U.S.-Peking disagreements over the arming of Taiwan, the U.S. signed a joint communiqué with Peking on August 17, 1982, pledging to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan “leading over a period of time to a final resolution.” The U.S. also stated that arms sales would not exceed, qualitatively or quantitatively, the level supplied in recent years since normalization of relations.

Taiwan charged that the communiqué violated both the spirit and the letter of the Taiwan Relations Act—and according to some political observers, this could indeed be the case. As the military threat posed by modernization and improvement of the PRC’s defense capabilities increases, the quantity and quality of arms necessary to maintain Taiwan’s self-defense (a level which the U.S. promised to provide in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act) will probably exceed the limits on arms sales set by a literal reading of the 1982 communiqué.

It remains to be seen when and how Red China will attempt reunification with Taiwan. Clearly, the United States cannot be counted on to intervene. The Taiwanese army is the sole force standing between free China and the fate their brethren on the mainland have already met.

[[File:Shoushanyan Guanyin Temple.jpg|thumb|Shoushanyan Kuan Yin Temple, Taoyuan City, Taiwan]]

== Freedom for Taiwan ==

On December 8, 1975, [[Saint Germain]] gave a landmark dictation entitled “Freedom for Taiwan.” In it he warned:

<blockquote>
Let the sons and daughters of Liberty arise this day! For I am calling you, and this is my message: The fulcrum of light on Terra for the reversing of the tide of the beast of the Orient is Taiwan. Fifteen million souls of light are keeping the flame of [[Kuan Yin]] on that island of light. That island of light is an ancient focus of freedom; and it must not be turned over to the Communists, to the Chinese, or to the Russians. It must not become that political football between East and West pacifying the Communists. It must not be used as a forcefield or as a focal point of evil on either side, but the people of Taiwan must be free to be independent and to be protected by the forces of freedom above and below....

[Taiwan] is the focal point whereby the hosts of light will turn the tide of World Communism. From Taiwan they will back up the Communist forces across China, across the mainland, across Russia. And the rescue of Terra will not be from Europe, but it will be from that focal point of light....

People of America, people of freedom, do you not understand what will take place on this very soil, in this very place, if the hordes of the fallen ones are allowed to override the forcefields of light throughout the world? I say you must not rest day or night! You must not lay your body, no matter how weary, to rest at night without breathing your prayers to me and to Kuan Yin for the rescue of that island.

We are not content to rescue souls! We are not content to have them taken out by air! We are not content unless we have the land. For the land is the Mother’s, the land is the focus, the land is the retreat of the Mother of China. And it must not be given over to any force whatsoever! It must be maintained free. It must be defended by the forces of light and the hosts of light in every freedom-loving nation of the world....

I tell you, children of the Light, if you lose Taiwan, you will lose the greatest concentration of Lightbearers per square mile in any part of the earth. There is no greater concentration. They are there in the white-fire core for the victory. And I tell you, the race of Chin will be lost if they are lost; for they must roll back the darkness of the mainland and free the people from these [[fallen one]]s.<ref>Saint Germain, “Freedom for Taiwan,” Parts 1 and 2, {{POWref|20|47 & 48|, November 13 & 20, 1977}}</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Archangel Gabriel]] addressed the people of Taiwan in 1978:

<blockquote>
You cannot hold the line of world freedom in Asia—in your economy, in your government, in your industry, or in your armed forces—without direct contact with God through the blessed mediator, your own individual [[Christ Self]].

Your souls are sent as the survivors of an ancient battle between Light and Darkness where a handful of the children of Chin defeated a dragon of idolatry and ideology whose nucleus was death and the cult of death....

The cunning cruelty of the Chinese Communists from Mao to Hua Kuo-feng and [[Teng Hsiao-p’ing]] derives from their fallen masters. These astral overlords control the chessboards and their pawns in governments bond and free, their goal being always to extend the line of their territory to include more and more of the ground of the children of the light, challenging their right to evolve in freedom upon that ground.

Children of the light of Taiwan, you have held that line with the legions of [[Jophiel and Christine]] for many an aeon and many an arena of the time/space continuums! And your own [[Chiang Kai-shek]], [[Madame Chiang]], and [[Chiang Ching-kuo]] have figured again and again as heroes and heroine of your legions of light.

The people of Chin, both from the mainland and on the island of light, are of an ancient evolution. They are bearers of wisdom’s scrolls dictated by [[Lord Lanto]] and Lord [[Confucius]] as emissaries of the [[Cosmic Christ]]s unto your [[root race]]s serving on the second ray—the ray of the incarnation of the Word.

You once knew the message of Messiah as the message of your own inner man of the heart,<ref>1 Pet. 3:4.</ref> exemplified in your sages....

The children of the light in all of China are one indissoluble Union. Their oneness is their origin in God yet to be realized in their orientation of God-freedom, their culture of the Mother, and their victory in the light. While the masterminds of world dominion think they arrange and rearrange power and anti-power by diplomatic maneuvering, the two-edged sword of righteousness forged of “molecules” of souls East and West keeps the way of the [[Tree of Life]] for the children of God bond or free.<ref>{{MHG}}, chapter 9.</ref>
</blockquote>

== For more information ==

For additional spiritual background on Taiwan, see {{MHG}}, chapters 8 & 9.

For additional information on America's betrayal of Taiwan, see the following publications:

Anthony Kubek, ''How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941–1949'' (1963; reprint ed., New York: Twin Circle Publishing Co., 1972)

Carroll Quigley, ''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'' (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966), pp. 818–19, 904–9, 945–56, 1000–1001.

Jeffrey B. Gayner, ''The China Decision and the Future of Taiwan'', Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, no. 70 (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1978).

John Tierney, Jr., ed., ''About Face: The China Decision and Its Consequences'' (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979).

Robert G. Sutter, ''China-U.S. Relations'', Congressional Research Service, Issue Brief No. IB76053 (Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress, 1982).

Luella S. Christopher, ''The August 17, 1982 U.S.-China Communique on Taiwan: A Summary of Its Terms and Possible Implications'', Congressional Research Service, F/A IP 21 (Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress, 1982).

Martin L. Lasater, ''Taiwan: Facing Mounting Threats'' (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1984).

== Sources ==

Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Abdication of America’s Destiny,” Part 2, {{POWref|31|23|, June 5, 1988}}

{{MHG}}, chapter 8, endnotes.
<references />