There has been considerable grumbling among many -- perhaps the majority -- of China experts in the US about the direction the administration of President George W. Bush is taking on China policy. To some of them the administration seems to be downgrading the China relationship and their official statements are provocative. I suspect we will hear more of these views aimed at restoring the attitudes of the recent past. I hope they do not succeed. The relationship needed some rebalancing, not only in bilateral terms with China, but also with Taiwan and the cross-strait issue. That seems to be the direction in which the new government is heading, but it is neither downgrading the relationship nor being provocative.
Beijing, and many of the China experts, have been spoiled by the inordinate attention given to the PRC as an emerging superpower. This view of China has been buttressed in the US by references to its great size and rapid rate of growth. The argument has been used as the basis for treating China with great sensitivity, and supporting the gamble that it will succeed in becoming an open, prosperous, reliable power with which we all inevitably must do business in the years ahead.
This has led, in turn, to public condemnation of any action or statement that could cause Beijing any unhappiness. The apparent purpose of this kind of spin has been to protect the relationship, but the degrees of gravity of these warnings have invariably been the same regardless of the action intended.
According to the same experts, however, when the issue is China's potential as a security threat, the focus is not on China as a world player, but rather on its weakness as a military power. Then the same China becomes decades away from being able to challenge our interests. This ambivalence clearly has left members of Congress rather confused. From their perspective, it seems we have the obligation to sustain enormous trade deficits with and provide equally large capital investments to China, to help it become a great power, but not be concerned about its intentions on security matters where we have equally large interests. As a result, Congress voted to form a US-China Security Review Commission. The purpose is to provide an annual report to Congress on the national security implications and impact of the bilateral trade and economic ties between the US and China.
With the recent change in Senate leadership, it was expected that perhaps the new leadership might try to influence the direction the Bush administration was taking on its China policy. The first hearing of the commission last week had three senators -- two Democrats and one Republican -- testify on the interdependence between the economic and national security aspects of the US-China relationship. If there are differences between the two parties in the Senate on this issue, it was not apparent.
Senator Robert Byrd thought it would be a mistake to oversimplify this situation by failing to recognize the interdependence between the economic and national security aspects of the relationship. He wanted the commission to assess the overall effect of the huge annual trade surpluses and the mushrooming infusions of US equity capital to China on the
long-term security interests of the US. The EP-3 incident, he said, should put to rest the view that trade issues can be neatly separated from security issues.
Senator Paul Sarbanes described the bilateral trade relationship as the most one-sided in the world. The character of imports from China is shifting increasingly to sophisticated categories of products which compete directly with goods made in the US. In addition, US foreign investment is about to overtake US exports as the primary means by which US companies deliver goods to China. China's policies for attracting foreign investment and technology also have significant national security implications.
Senator Charles Hagel suggested that a transparent, efficient and realistic system of export controls will encourage the participation and compliance of the business community. He thought we must also work with our allies and friends in this effort. The concerns of the three senators seem remarkably like those of Taiwan.
Two days before this hearing, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly testified before the House International Relations Subcommittee. He laid out the US policy toward China as well as toward the cross-strait issue. They were hardly provocative. The difference was the straightforward presentation -- something Beijing or many of the US' China-watchers had become unaccustomed to hearing. "We do not view China as an enemy. We view China as a partner on some issues and a competitor for influence in the region." He referred to the US' large trade and investment relationship as being in US interests, and supported China's entry into the WTO: "The administration wants a productive relationship with Beijing. The ball is in the PRC's court."
On cross-strait matters, he referred to China's growing deployments aimed at Taiwan -- and at the US. He noted that, "Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁] has repeatedly expressed his commitment to cross-strait dialogue." He urged both sides to resume dialogue, and thought progress could be made "if the PRC has the political will ...." He referred to the growing economic interchange, and then to the need for the PRC to shift from intimidating to appealing to the people of Taiwan.
The most important point with respect to the cross-strait issue was his statement that, "The PRC cannot ignore the elected representatives of the people of Taiwan if cross-strait dialogue is to resume and be revitalized. Instead, it must offer a case that is attractive to a democratically elected leadership." That makes the US position clear on what is needed to restart the dialogue. Beijing has always been very clear: simply accept their preconditions, ie surrender. In Taiwan, on the other hand, there seem to be advocates for both paths to dialogue.
I believe the government in Washington, on the matter of China policy, has not done badly, as so many China experts like to believe. It has set the tone. Some may not like it. Some elements of it may change with time, though it is not likely to waver too far from the broad direction it has gone for many years (barring some crisis). But, in my judgment, it has begun to establish a more natural, realistic and better-understood relationship than we have had in the past.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under