Every now and then articles or reports are published that are so wide of the mark that they cry out for rebuttal. Two separate dispatches, one from the political Right, the other from the Left, have uttered equal nonsense.
From the Right, a report from the US Senate Republican Policy Committee urged the US to play a Japanese nuclear card in demanding that China force North Korea to give up its plans to acquire nuclear weapons.
And from the Left, an anti-American essay by a China specialist at Chatham House, the research center in London, asserted that the Bush administration and its "neocon" allies are planning a war against China that the US cannot win.
The Republican committee, chaired by Senator Jon Kyl, asserted: "Essentially, the United States must demand that the PRC [People's Republic of China] make a choice: either help out or face the possibility of other nuclear neighbors."
The report did not name Japan, but it left little doubt that it wanted the US to encourage Japan to go nuclear if China did not rein in North Korea.
This suggestion, which has come earlier from other Republicans, is claptrap for three reasons. First, and perhaps most important, there is no Japanese nuclear card to play.
Japan clearly has the technology to produce nuclear arms. Some 50 nuclear power plants produce one-third of the nation's electricity. A Japanese strategic thinker many years ago said Japan was "N minus six months," meaning it could detonate a nuclear device within six months of a decision to proceed. Today, some say, that is down to three months.
The primary restraint in Japan is the "nuclear allergy" that is the legacy of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago. It is still so strong that political leaders in Tokyo who try to produce a nuclear weapon would be confronted with colossal rioting and blood flowing in the streets -- possibly including their own.
Second, Japanese acquisition of nuclear arms would have unpredictable consequences throughout East Asia. Japan is slowly shedding the pacifist cocoon in which it wrapped itself after World War II, including the deployment of a small ground unit to Iraq.
That has been accepted by Tokyo's neighbors, but the leap to nuclear arms would surely cause political and popular eruptions from Seoul to Singapore that would do the US posture in Asia no good.
Third, the Senate recommendation, if accepted, would destroy the anti-proliferation policy of US President George W. Bush. The administration has sought to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear arms not only for the threat itself but, equally important, because it would breach the line discouraging other nations from seeking nuclear arms.
It is true that a debate about nuclear arms has broken out in Japan, in sharp contrast to the self-imposed ban on such discussions five years ago. That, however, is talk, and nowhere to be seen is a political, technical or financial movement to acquire and pay for the weapons.
The question of war between the US and China was broached in an essay by David Wall, an academic at Chatham House. He asserted that the Bush administration was preparing for an inevitable war with China.
He added: "The US knows that it could not win a military war with China. The nuclear capability of both sides is redundant; neither side could use it."
Wall is wrong on both counts.
The Bush administration has sought to engage China on one hand and deter it on the other. In his book on Bush's security team, Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann said: "The administration set carefully limited goals that could be achieved without either a collapse or a capitulation by the Chinese regime."
Officers at the Pacific Command in Hawaii, who draft contingency plans to be executed if hostilities erupt, have emphasized that those plans are intended to deter China. They have also said, publicly and privately, that China should not misread US intentions and capabilities.
Several years ago, Admiral Dennis Blair, then head of the Pacific Command, told a Congressional committee that he made two points in discussions with China's leaders. One was the US had no intention of attacking China and that military preparations were intended only to persuade them not to miscalculate.
The second pointed to US sea and air power and, implicitly, the US nuclear arsenal. It was more blunt: "Don't mess with us."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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