The Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration is not having a great time of late, with the recent legislative elections upset compounded by the statement by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage concerning the US commitment to defend Taiwan.
Armitage was reported to have said during a TV interview that the US was not committed to defend Taiwan if it were attacked by China. The commitment, he maintained, was to sell defensive arms to Taiwan.
He also said that only the US Congress would make the decision to defend it, and not the Bush administration. He also reiterated the US position that "there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of China."
According to Armitage, Taiwan was emerging as a "landmine" in US-China relations.
His boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, said a few months ago in an interview that Taiwan was not a sovereign nation, and urged both Beijing and Taipei to seek "peaceful reunification."
The obvious question is: What is going on? The answer is that the US is looking after its immediate interests.
The US is bogged down in Iraq. It needs all the help it can get. Therefore, China's support or neutrality in this regard and on the global war on terrorism is very important.
As Professor Amin Saikal, director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University, says: "If the present trends in Iraq endure [over a period of time] the US stands to sustain critical political and economic damage, with an expanding vulnerability to wider opposition within the Arab and Muslim worlds and serious setbacks in the war on terrorism."
Beijing is not unaware of the US predicament and will use it to its advantage.
At the same time, North Korea is proving to be a diplomatic nightmare. The Bush administration has got itself badly entangled in the North Korean nuclear proliferation issue, having threatened the regime with all sorts of consequences when Washington decided to up the ante. But it is not making much headway. What-ever little has so far happened in terms of six-power negotiations (now stalled) was due to Beijing's initiative.
If anything, Pyongyang is becoming more fearful that the US is actively engaged in destabilizing Kim Jong-il's regime. They are not keen on another round of talks.
Georgy Toloraya, research director at the Center for Contemporary Korean Studies in Russia, is of the view that the present regime in North Korea will not collapse like some of the former East European communist states.
According to him, "[North Korea] is not a Stalinist state as commonly reported. It is a combination of Oriental despotism, theocracy and Confucianism -- a bureaucratic monarchy."
Hence, it is tied up in so many knots that unravelling it requires the utmost caution.
If so, Washington will be looking to Beijing even more to solve the North Korean riddle, but cannot if Chen keeps up the pace for Taiwan's formal independence. It is immaterial if Chen is seeking independence or not. Beijing regards him as dangerous and wants Washington to "rein him in." The State Department's panic is clearly reflected in Armitage's remarks that Taiwan is emerging as a sort of land mine in US-China relations.
It is worth noting, though, that the Pentagon doesn't seem to share this sense of panic at the State Department. It continues to cement and develop military ties with Taiwan. As reported in the media, Admiral Thomas Fargo, commander of the US forces in the Pacific, told the Chinese as recently as July that the US wouldn't look the other way if China were to attack Taiwan. Even Armitage stood by the US commitment to sell arms to Taiwan for its defense.
Armitage's message is directed both at China and Taiwan. Beijing is being reassured that Washington is not behind whatever Chen is doing to displease them. And they are indeed trying to "rein him in" by qualifying the US commitment to defend Taiwan. In other words, China is being told not to overreact to Taiwan's internal politics. At the same time, Taipei has been cautioned not to provoke China lest things get out of control.
Taipei's disappointment is quite understandable. After all, it was US President George W. Bush who said in April 2001 that his administration would do "whatever it took" to defend Taiwan. And now the US is softening the message for China. In the process, it is encouraging China to press its advantage.
And where will it end?
For instance, Beijing is angry that the new Japanese defense policy has identified China as a security threat on par with North Korea.
According to its China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue (
China does not like being equated with North Korea as a security threat, calling the claims "totally groundless and extremely irresponsible." Beijing has also urged Tokyo to take "prudent actions in military and security issues."
What is happening is that Japan is trying to emerge as a "normal" nation to carve out its national sphere and assert its national interests. Beijing doesn't like it because this is bound to complicate its ambitions to create its regional "co-prosperity sphere."
Only a humble Japan, weighed down by its wartime crimes, will suit China. But Tokyo is not buying it. Japan will, therefore, be increasingly consigned to visit China's wrath -- the same as Beijing is doing to Taiwan.
Nothing Japan does these days is quite right as far as Beijing is concerned. For instance, Tokyo is under attack for letting former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) pay a sightseeing visit to Japan. According to a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, this has "severely disturbed" bilateral relations.
Beijing should learn some humility. Budding superpower status is making it dangerously arrogant.
The point is that if China insists on treating Japan as part of its security zone (evident from its submarines and maritime vessels making forays into its waters), the matter is bound to fall at some point under the sphere of the US-Japan security alliance.
Will the US then "rein in Japan" lest its "provocative" behavior adversely affects Sino-US relations?
If so, China will have a foothold on US policy.
It is, therefore, imperative that the US not allow its global strategy to become a hostage to its immediate preoccupations with Iraq, global terrorism and North Korea.
Taiwan is not really the landmine in Sino-US relations.
The real landmine is China's supersized ambition to be the global power.
And if it can edge out the US from defending Taiwan, this will just be the beginning. Japan might be next.
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS