An important indication that the US is worried about China's incursions into the Asia-Pacific region is the inroads it has made into Australia. Australia is probably the US' most trusted ally and has been for a long time. During his recent US visit, Australian Prime Minister John Howard sought to reaffirm the two countries' close relationship. The US appears satisfied.
But of late Canberra has been seeking to recover some political flexibility in its relations with China. Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, for instance, said in Beijing a while ago that its security alliance with the US (the ANZUS Treaty) didn't apply to Taiwan. In other words, Canberra wouldn't necessarily follow the US in any military conflict with China.
Howard has been more diplomatic, though. When asked, he dismisses as hypothetical the prospect of a conflict over Taiwan and hence not worthy of a response. He reportedly said in Washington that he didn't feel "the least bit squeezed" between the US and China over their rising military and economic rivalry. Indeed, he is optimistic on Sino-US relations.
He was, however, duly critical of Major General Zhu Chenghu's(朱成虎) comments about raining nuclear weapons on US cities if Washington got involved in any military conflict over Taiwan. But Howard also said (and it would be appreciated in Beijing) that, "... I am sure they don't represent the views of the Chinese government."
It doesn't mean Howard had some privileged information from Beijing in this regard. As might be recalled, Zhu had said, when making his nuclear threat, that it was his personal opinion. He was thus leaving the door open for his government to dissociate itself from his "personal" remarks.
Which they did when China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing(李肇星) said that his country would not be the first to use nuclear weapons "at any time and under any condition." But it took them a while to do that and that too after widespread international criticism. The point, though, is that nobody, much less a serving army general, has the luxury of a personal opinion for public consumption in a country like China. Apparently, he cleared it with the top authorities before airing his "personal" opinion in front of the media.
Was he testing the waters for US reaction? Did he think that that this would further frighten the world into putting pressure on the US to stay out of the Taiwan situation? It could even send an apocalyptic message to Taiwan to surrender before it was too late. My guess is it is a little bit of all of the above and possibly more. But the most worrying thing is that the nuclear threat is being openly canvassed as a possible choice.
Returning to Australia as a barometer of US concern, the subtle differences between the two countries in their approaches on China are all too apparent. Howard, for instance, was confident that China would remain a benign power and cautioned against being "obsessed" with its strategic threat. He said, "I have a more optimistic view about the relationship between China and the US and I know that the leadership of both countries understand the importance of common sense in relation to Taiwan."
US President George W. Bush, on the other hand, has described the relationship with China as "complicated," with problems looming over a range of issues. Australia would rather focus on expanding trade with China, without bothering about human rights and political freedom.
Bush urged Australia to "work together [with the US] to reinforce the need for China to accept certain values as universal -- the value of minority rights, the value of freedom for people to speak, the value of freedom of religion, the same values we share."
This is not to suggest that Australia is veering away from its close political and security relationship with the US. The suggestion, though, is that if a close ally like Australia can start exercising political flexibility on issues like human rights, democracy and the defense of Taiwan, it is no wonder that other Asia-Pacific countries are also making a beeline to China's side.
Another important barometer of US concern over China is the emerging East Asian community, which seeks to exclude the US from its membership. In the 1990s when the then Malaysian prime minister Mohammed Mahathir mooted the idea of an East Asia caucus (without the US), it failed to take on.
Malaysia has again taken the initiative (with China's blessing and encouragement) to form an East Asian community. The timing seems right, with China now increasingly seen as the rising power in the region. The US won't be invited to the Kuala Lumpur summit of its intended members scheduled for mid-December.
The proposed East Asian community will comprise ASEAN members (the core group) plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, New Zealand and Australia, now that it has agreed to sign the ASEAN non-aggression pact -- the Treaty of Amity and Co-operation. The only consolation for the US is that the proposed East Asian community will have among its mem-bers allies like Japan and Australia to counterbalance China.
Washington is not sitting by idly, though. It has floated a forum of its key allies to deliberate on China's rise and the potential threat it might pose. The Halibut Group, as it is called, reportedly includes the US, Japan, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. Australia had initially refused to join for fear of offending China. But, apparently under pressure from Washington during Prime Minister Howard's US visit, it might also join the line-up.
The exact nature of the new, as yet informal group, is not yet known. But it springs from the US' concern about China's increasing power.
US worry on this account is reflected clearly in the Pentagon's annual report. Washington is concerned that China's growing military power is now both a threat to US security interests and the Asia-Pacific region. As the report says, "Some of China's military planners are surveying the strategic landscape beyond Taiwan."
In other words, they are not just targeting Taiwan but their ambitions are regional, even global.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
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