China's quasi-parliament, the National People's Congress, passed an "Anti-Secession" Law last week authorizing the Beijing government to take "non-peaceful measures" should Taiwan take any action that China chooses to define as "separatist."
Taiwan has been under the effective rule of China for only four years in the past century. The people of Taiwan increasingly consider themselves to be Taiwanese, not Chinese. A survey by the Election Study Center at National Chengchi University shows that the number of people who self-identify solely as Taiwanese has risen from 17.3 percent to 41.5 percent.
Over the past 30 years, Taiwan has become a successful, stable and prosperous democracy, and is Australia's seventh-largest trading partner. Australia's trade with Taiwan is worth some US$7 billion a year. Our China trade is worth US$28 billion.
Paradoxically, China and Taiwan have enjoyed increasingly close economic relations, while allowing the issue of Taiwan's status and its future to remain deliberately opaque. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), despite his past support for independence, has not made any moves in that direction, and has pledged not to do so.
China has been both belligerent and conciliatory toward Taiwan, perhaps reflecting political differences within Beijing's communist leadership. But more worrying than its hot-and-cold rhetoric has been China's ominous arms build-up in recent years. Defense expenditures will reach US$38.1 billion this year, up by 12.6 percent from last year.
There is no doubt that Taiwan will fight to defend its freedom. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the US will be obliged to come to Taiwan's defense. The ANZUS treaty makes Australia a military ally of the US, so the nightmare scenario is that Australia may be drawn into any such conflict.
China understands this, and feels increasingly confident about throwing its weight around, which is why a senior Chinese Foreign Ministry official warned Australia last week to be careful not to invoke the ANZUS alliance against China.
Australia should be using its best offices to see that situation does not deteriorate further. We should counsel our friends in Taiwan not to make any provocative moves, and to stick to Chen's "five noes" policy (no declaration of independence; no change of the country's name; no references in the Constitution to state-to-state relations; no referendum on Taiwan's status; no abolition of the National Reunification Council).
However, we should also make clear to China that the use of force against Taiwan is not acceptable.
Australia's interest clearly lies in the preservation of the careful ambiguity of the current situation. With the 2008 Olympics coming up, it's clear that China's interests lie in continued economic progress, domestic political reform and peaceful co-operation with all of its neighbors. Australia has good relations with China, and everyone in this country wants that to continue. Both major parties are considering supporting a free-trade agreement.
Australia's vastly expanded economic ties are just as important as the political links at federal and state government level, and among parliaments, unions and even local governments. These have grown exponentially in the past decade, and may have put Beijing under the misapprehension that what former Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev called "the correlation of forces" has moved in their direction.
However, if China is to embark on military conflict with Taiwan, I think we will see a change in mood not just in this country but in Europe and the US.
I am sure that is a situation that wise heads in Beijing do not want.
Michael Danby is a Labor Party lawmaker in Australia.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS