US-China relations have taken a sharp dive after Washington’s decision to sell a range of weapons to Taiwan to defend itself against Chinese attack.
The proposed sale has been submitted to Congress for approval, which is expected to follow.
The weapons are said to include advanced capability Patriot missiles, known as PAC-3 missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters and two minesweepers.
Beijing has predictably hit the roof, warning the US of a “serious negative impact” on ties between the two countries.
More enigmatic, if not ominous, are remarks made by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei (何亞非), who said the proposed arms deal would lead to an “aftermath both sides would not prefer,” and asked the US to reverse its “erroneous” decision.
However, looking at it rationally, there is nothing new in the US’ decision to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan.
OBLIGED
It is a continuation of US policy under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979, under which the US is legally obliged to help Taiwan defend itself.
And, according to a US State Department spokesperson: “Such sales contribute to maintaining security and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”
Which seems to be an accurate assessment, as even under a China-friendly Taiwanese government led by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Beijing has not removed its estimated 1,000-plus missiles targeted at Taiwan.
Indeed, when he was running for the presidency, Ma had pledged to bring about a security agreement with China to deal with Beijing’s military threat.
However, nothing has happened in this regard, despite the Ma government’s initiatives to expand relations with China.
The US has sold defensive weapons to Taiwan in the past, and it will continue to do so under the TRA. China has always objected to arms sales to Taiwan, but this time its objections are somewhat ominous in their rhetoric.
Why is Beijing acting like this?
Because it has begun to overestimate its global power.
EQUAL BILLING
Ever since US President Barack Obama took power last year, the US gave China equal billing in managing crucial global issues like the financial crisis, climate change and nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea.
This gave rise to talk of the US and China as the “G2” powers.
During her China visit, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thanked China for continuing to buy US treasury notes and bonds in spite of the economic crisis.
Around the same time, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) expressed concern about the security of China’s investments in US currency.
Seemingly emphasizing a new era in US-China relations, Clinton said in Beijing that China’s human rights issues would not derail progress in other areas of their bilateral relations.
It is not surprising, therefore, that China started to overestimate its global power and behave as though the US were a client state, and that when the proposed US arms sale to Taiwan was announced, Beijing hit the roof with all kinds of retaliatory threats.
The Chinese wolf will keep huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the house down for quite some time to come, but eventually it should settle down.
There is always a danger of things getting out of control, however, in this game of brinkmanship.
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