President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) renamed the "defensive referendum" the "peace referendum" in the hope that Taiwan and China will establish a peaceful and stable interactive framework. Similarly, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), during his visit to France, said his country is developing "peaceful diplomacy." When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) visited the US last year, he even described China's rise as a "peaceful ascendancy."
Leaders from both sides are using the word "peace[ful]." But we have not seen China's "peaceful ascendancy" bring any peaceful prospect to the relationship across the Taiwan Strait.
Beijing's leaders chose the term "peaceful ascendancy" in response to the shift in US strategy. Since US President George W. Bush took office, the superpower has made efforts to realize its "imperial strategy." Through this strategy, generally called "unilateralism," the US has constantly used its military advantage to interfere around the world, establishing its global leadership and hegemonic system.
Out of fear of the US' imperial strategy and to avoid being pushed by international society to the front line vying for global leadership with the US, China has gradually adopted the concept of "peaceful ascendancy" after Hu took power, replacing the "great-power diplomacy" traditionally used during the Jiang Zemin (江澤民) era. Without the "great power" label, China can avoid the embarrassment brought by direct conflict with the US' power. Mean-while, it can maintain strategic dialogue with the US.
However, what practical strategic moves should be expected during China's "peaceful ascendancy?" Chinese academic Sun Zhe (孫哲) points out three feasible directions. First, adopt an effective approach to interaction with other nations and promote the different values and national interests of China and other nations. Second, establish early warning systems to avoid differences in assessment and to adjust the diplomatic process. And third, recapitulate experiences and continuously expand successful diplomatic cooperation in a bid to expand and deepen the foundation for interaction with other nations.
The concepts of interaction, early warning and cooperation are the basic meaning of Beijing's "peaceful ascendancy" when building diplomatic relationships.
Deplorably, although China has these diplomatic ideas, it still adopts unfriendly measures to deal with Taiwan. In addition to its traditional tactics of targeting Taiwan with missiles, refusing to relinquish the use of military force and intimidating Taiwan to accept the "one China" principle, it has been applying pressure through the international community and publicizing the discourse that "opposing referendums is opposing Taiwanese independence."
This has misled the international community into believing that Chen attempts to change the status quo and has made the Taiwanese people feel China's ascent. But this is nothing more than an "ascendancy of hege-mony." We can hardly see any "peaceful ascendancy."
During a hearing on Capitol Hill, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Randall Schriver pointed out that now only 6 percent of Taiwanese people accept unification with China and 20 percent support independence. Although a majority of people tend to prefer maintaining the status quo, aren't the increase and decrease in supporters for independence and unification caused by China's missile intimidation? If Beijing really believes this is a "peaceful ascendancy," how can they create so many supporters for Taiwanese independence?
Similarly, because China does not give up the use of military attacks against Taiwan, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless had to reiterate that the US is obliged to support Taiwan to maintain deterrent forces and to cooperate with allies to help it maintain sufficient defense capabilities. In the event of war, Taiwan would be capable of swiftly defeating China.
As long as China does not remove the missiles aimed at Taiwan and relinquish the use of military force against Taiwan, it cannot cover the fundamental of its "hegemonic ascendancy," no matter how hard it attempts to maintain a facade of "peace" in the international community.
Wang Kun-yi is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies of Tamkang University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS