|
Adviser urges tempering of support
WAR ON TERROR:
Lin Chong-pin says the US campaign in Afghanistan is a different beast from an attack on Iraq and is calling on Taiwan to distinguish between the two
By Wu Ming-chieh
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 12, 2002, Page 5
At a time when it appears war between the US and Iraq could erupt at any moment, Lin Chong-pin (林中斌), a professor at National Sun Yat-sen University and an adviser to the National Security Council, said Monday that Taiwan's support of the US war on terror should differentiate between the war on Afghanistan and an attack on Iraq.
Lin said this distinction should be made since the international situation has changed since US forces entered Afghanistan.
Lin said he believes that a war between the US and Iraq would mainly impact Taiwan in the areas of the economy and oil, while it would not have much of an impact on cross-strait affairs.
The professor predicted that China would not attack Taiwan should the US launch an assault on Iraq, but believes China would take more limited action to put pressure on Taiwan since US attention would be diverted.
Regarding the question of whether the "Sanchih meeting" (三芝會議) defined the "unlimited war" being developed by China as terrorism, Lin said that just like al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks, China's unlimited war adopts non-traditional methods and could, in a wider sense, be defined as terrorism.
According to Lin, the US war on terror can be divided into two stages: from Sept. 11 last year to having achieved success in Afghanistan in March this year, and the period of preparation and planning for an attack on Iraq from March to the present. In regard to the first stage, throughout history, this is probably the war that has received the highest level of international support. It was even supported by North Korea, which the US sees part of the "axis of evil."
Second, according to Lin's analysis, Russia leaned toward the Western camp for the first time. Not only did its attitudes toward NATO differ from the past, but it also did not oppose the US on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Further, Lin said, China was exceptionally careful when it came to anti-terrorist activities. Even though, on the surface, it supported the US' anti-terror activities, it also realized that it had been eclipsed by US power, and therefore adopted a low profile in some of its anti-Taiwanese activities.
Finally, according to Lin, the US experienced two extreme emotions. One was the feeling that the US had never been so vulnerable, and the other was the feeling that the US never had been this strong, particularly when it came to the war in Afghanistan, which, to the surprise of many experts, was over in three months.
Lin also believes that the two stages differ in four ways.
First, the war on Afghanistan received unprecedented international support, while the plans for an attack on Iraq are only supported by the UK and Israel. There are even protests within the Republican Party, with some people doubting President George W. Bush's unilateralism.
Second, the Russo-Sino relationship has recently returned to its original status. Russia has, for example, recently sold military equipment to China.
Third, from November last year until March this year, China continued to strengthen its "money diplomacy." Beginning in April, it started implementing a "distance diplomacy." It has met with some initial diplomatic success. It even ignores the US war on terror and maintains contacts with Iraq and other "axis of evil" countries.
Fourth, Japan made several contributions to the US war on terror during the first stage. During the second stage, however, due to concerns over its economic interests, several of the original seven points where it promised to support the US war on terror have yet to be fully implemented.
According to Lin, if the US is to successfully win a war against Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, it has to be successful militarily, in follow-up peacekeeping activities and in the reconstruction of political power. In case of insufficient international support, the US will once again walk down the road of unilateralism and isolationism. If this happens, it will not be advantageous to the Bush administration.
Translated by Perry Svensson
This story has been viewed 2189 times.
|