BY NOW, EVERYONE has heard about the Chinese government's refusal to allow the USS Kitty Hawk battle group and its crew of 8,000 to make a port call in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving -- as well as China's supposed reversal of the decision on "humanitarian" grounds after the flotilla had already steamed out to sea. We now know the Chinese reversed their decision when they tracked the USS Kitty Hawk's battle group sailing back to Japan through the Taiwan Strait. So much for China's "humanitarian" concerns.
Beijing's foreign minister initially told US President George W. Bush the incident was a "misunderstanding," but his own ministry insisted the following day that there was no such "misunderstanding."
Instead, the Chinese said the decision was in retaliation for the Bush administration's decision to approve a US$1 billion upgrade to Taiwan's missile defense system and Congress' presenting the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal.
This provocative move by Beijing should come as a surprise to no one. After all, the US relationship with China has long been one of "give and take" -- the US gives, and China takes. Each time the US makes an accommodation, Beijing sees only weakness and becomes more aggressive -- which in turn prompts the US State Department to offer yet more concessions.
Since late 2003, the Bush administration has bent over backwards to appease China; President Bush publicly denounced President Chen Shui-bian (
State Department officials have also refused to allow Chen to transit through continental US en route to Latin America. In August, Bush dispatched US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte to parrot the language of China's "Anti-Secession" Law and criticize an upcoming referendum in Taiwan -- on a Chinese television station.
And most recently, the Bush administration inexplicably refused to act on Taiwan's request for F-16s -- despite the fact that the White House has spent the last five years criticizing the Taiwanese government for failing to make sufficient investment in defense.
And for all of this pandering, what has the Bush administration gained?
Half-hearted Chinese cooperation in the "Six Party Talks," Chinese obstruction in the human tragedy unfolding in Sudan, renewed Chinese threats of military action against Taiwan, and now the brazen and public humiliation of the US in barring the USS Kitty Hawk from Hong Kong's harbor.
And China, certainly no help in encouraging transparency in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, is now using the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as a rationale for pressuring the US, the Europeans and the International Atomic Energy Agency to ease off on demands for access to what is still a very troubling ongoing uranium enrichment program.
Since 1979, when the US recognized China, the US has repeatedly attempted to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip in an effort to establish some kind of quid pro quo with the Chinese.
Aside from the moral shortcomings inherent in this duplicitous policy -- the approach simply hasn't worked -- numerous US "quids" over the years have never produced any meaningful Chinese "quo."
Late last month, for example, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to a question about whether Beijing would support additional UN measures to curb Iranian nuclear enrichment efforts if the US scaled back arms sales to Taiwan. The spokesman responded by saying that China would "never trade its sovereignty or principle" on the matter.
The US relationship with Taiwan isn't the only thing that has suffered as a result of our hopeless policy of appeasement vis-a-vis China.
It highlights a glaring hypocrisy in US foreign policy, undermines our international image, emboldens our enemies and enhances the credibility of our detractors like China.
The Bush administration's practice of trying to limit Taiwan's democratic development and diplomatic space in return for China's illusory "cooperation" on North Korea, Myanmar, Iran or Sudan sends the message that the US is ceding Asia to China's hegemony.
A poll conducted earlier this month found that a plurality of Europeans now believe that China will replace the US as the dominant world power by 2020. Unless the US becomes more forceful in standing up for its principles and asserting its interests, this alarming perception could very likely become a reality.
If the US wants to reverse this dangerous trend it must start by changing its antiquated China policy.
The "one China" road the US started down in the 1970s has failed to resolve the "Taiwan Problem" or yield any tangible benefits for the US.
It is time the US rejected this anachronistic and ineffective policy in favor of a more honest and defensible "two-state solution" that extends full diplomatic recognition to both Taiwan and China.
Such a move would have a number of advantages -- beyond just providing US sailors with a friendly Taiwanese port in which to spend Thanksgiving with their families next year.
Establishing normal diplomatic ties with democratic Taiwan would also remedy a nagging inconsistency in US foreign policy. And -- as dual recognition did with East and West Germany -- might also open the door for an even-handed dialogue between the two sides, providing a real opportunity for Beijing and Taipei to resolve their differences peacefully -- whatever that resolution might be.
Tom Tancredo represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives and is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS