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.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS