Kenneth Lieberthal, who has just left his post as senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, wrote an article entitled US Policy Toward China, which was published on the Web site of the Brookings Institute on March 1.
In the article, Lieberthal still called for a strategic dialogue with China, instead of containment. The US should, as much as possible, according to Lieberthal, map out its China policy in accordance with Beijing's will. Lieberthal put forth six premises for the Bush administration, on which I have different opinions.
Lieberthal believes that the appearance of "a modernizing, reform-minded China that acts cooperatively with the US and behaves constructively both in the region and globally" will be beneficial for the US and Asia. He also believes that "a weaker, disorganized China" poses a greater threat. These viewpoints are acceptable theoretically.
But once China becomes a powerful country, will it be advantageous for the US and Asia? Not necessarily. Because the PRC is still ruled by a one-party communist dictatorship, its people have no right influence policy-making at a high level. Driven by fanatical nationalism, the PRC is liable to take feverish and unexpected actions. If, one day, the PRC becomes strong and is still governed by a dictatorship, I will not be surprised to see it acting against the interests of the US and Asia.
Lieberthal suggests the maintenance of a "one China" policy to ease tensions across the Taiwan Strait. It is correct theoretically, but what is "one China?" Beijing claims it to be the PRC, while Taiwan holds that it is the ROC. In the 1972 Shanghai Communique (上海公報), the US government acknowledged "one China" but did not clearly state which side represented that China. Under Clinton's rule, "one China" seemed to mean the PRC, while Taiwan almost became a province of it. The recognition runs counter to history and facts. If we make endless concessions toward Beijing's "one China" policy, tensions on both sides will never ease. The US should return to its stance of the Shanghai Communique and let the governments on both sides peacefully resolve the "one China" issue.
Lieberthal maintains that the Bush administration should help Beijing and Taipei sign an arms agreement to prevent an arms race. This is a beautiful fantasy. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has stepped up its deployment of guided missiles every year in preparation for an attack against Taiwan. It is estimated that China will have deployed 1,000 M9 and M11 missiles by 2005. The PLA has procured and manufactured SU-27 and SU-30 fighters in large quantities, and more than 400 fighters of the two types are expected to be in place by 2005. In addition, the PLA continues to buy and manufacture state-of-the-art warships and submarines. At this rate, the arms build-up will tip the balance across the Strait. Before the two sides reach an arms agreement, the best way for the US to protect Taiwan would be to sell it advanced weapons to keep a military balance, which may help prevent a war on the Strait.
I suggest the US focus on both dialogue and containment in its China policy. Through dialogue, Washington should provide Beijing with a certain degree of economic, technological and capital benefits in exchange for further opening up the China market. The US should also lead the PRC into the international community in terms of concepts, regulations and management. It should also cooperate with China to deal with issues of shared interest such as regional security, environmental protection, anti-drug and anti-AIDS programs.
When facing conflicts of interest, Washington and Beijing should negotiate through senior officials. If this does not work, the US should adopt a containment measure. The scope of the containment should cover politics, economics, military matters and diplomacy. The final goal will be to help China develop into a democratic society and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international treaties and norms. Once the PRC marches onto the democratic path and cooperates with the US sincerely, there will be no need for the containment policy.
Lieberthal still holds firm to his idea on "America's China policy," mainly because he has not deeply recognized or truly discovered the nature of the Chinese Communist Party. The PRC has always been ruled by a minority -- and even by only one person during specific periods. It wants to dominate Asia with its fanatical nationalism and "great-nation" chauvinism. Can we make a safe and peaceful world merely through dialogue when facing these lunatics who put blind faith in force? It is impossible.
The latest example is a treaty soon to be signed by Beijing and Moscow to counter the US. Beijing helps Iraq with its military build-up and turns a deaf ear to North Korea's development of long range missiles -- all these are meant to counter the US. The PLA's military expenditures are to increase by 17.2 percent in 2001 -- mainly to deal with Taiwan. Experts estimate that the actual military expenditure of the PLA is two or three times the official budget. Such being the case, why can't we adopt a containment policy along with a dialogue channel?
I am happy to see that the Bush administration is adjusting its China policy onto the right track. We cannot let Beijing have its own way. The world can never achieve peace by merely relying upon a beautiful fantasy.
Chris Wu is editor in chief of China Spring and China Affairs magazines.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers