During the summit between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Jiang Zemin (江澤民), Jiang proposed the removal of missiles from the Taiwan Strait in exchange for a decrease in arms sales to Taipei. Although Bush disarmed him simply by saying, "We are not that naive," the repercussions are still reverberating. What's more, according to former US State Department officials, the ball may soon be knocked into Tai-wan's court, where it could become hard to play.
Beijing's security policies have become more adaptable and flexible in recent years, mainly because those policies are still centered on "stabilizing the periphery and developing the economy." This is to highlight the fact that China is attempting the mature handling of international issues to show that it is sensible and capable of cooperation. We outline below, on the basis of Jiang's reasoning, a number of issues that arise from his offer and the responses that we would recommend.
First, it may have been a propaganda exercise to test the reactions of US and international media. China used the format and location of the APEC summit in Mexico to propose this way of reducing the risk of a military stand-off. It could be said that guided missiles have a high propaganda value and Jiang's proposal naturally provides several advantages in terms of public opinion.
To this, Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien (簡又新) used the analogy of "apples and oranges," saying that China's "missiles for arms sales" proposal is not a balanced one. There is some truth to this statement and the Ministry of National Defense believes that China's verbal goodwill is of no substantive value, but debate on the matter continues. To ensure that Taipei's point of view is heard, the two ministries should intensify their discussion on measures that could make for a good balance, in terms of both propaganda and substance.
Second, it is worth watching to see if Washington's China policies are changing. When the Bush administration took office, its statements and policies were clearly biased toward Taiwan, but this situation changed after the Sept. 11 attacks. The main reason was that terrorist activities had become a real threat to the US and so it became important to win China's cooperation.
Of course, from a strategic point of view, even if deals are made under the table between Beijing and Washington, the US cannot accept unequal deals like Jiang's "missiles for arms sales" offer. The problem is, however, that if Taiwan cannot propose a constructive response, US strategy in the Taiwan Strait will tip toward the other side, marginalizing Taipei.
Finally, China may have been proposing to adopt formal disarmament measures controlling the total number of missiles, perhaps even destroying them. Of course, it is employing diplomatic pressure, military threats and economic unification against Taiwan, objectives which this possibility would not appear to serve. But if China really were to disarm along the Taiwan Strait, Taipei could consider responding by means of declarations or track-two dialogue in an attempt to put an early end to the arms race.
It may be that the future will see a never-ending stream of more flexible policies from Beijing. For Taiwan, Jiang's offer provides a lesson in realism. Only with the close integration of national security, national defense, diplomacy and the China affairs network will an effective national security team be developed, with the ability to generate comprehensive strategies to meet the range of challenges that Taiwan faces on these fronts.
Lee Wen-chung is a DPP legislator and Su Tzu-yun is a researcher in the DPP Policy Research and Coordinating Committee.
Translated by Perry Svensson
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS