Washington's visitors from Beijing this month are laying down markers on the whole gamut of issues connected with cross-strait relations: the "one China" principle, of course; the inadequacy of the "small three links"
Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen
Beijing's most urgent purpose for sending emissaries and making public statements are the forthcoming decisions on US arms sales to Taiwan and in particular the decision on AEGIS destroyers, which it hopes to block. The issue is getting considerable public attention at this time and Beijing (and many China experts in the US) has tried to make it a bellwether for the new administration's policy toward the PRC.
Just in the last week alone, there have been significant public discussions on this subject. Two well-known and respected China experts from two different think tanks included the subject in their separate analyses. Two members of Congress spoke of it in speeches to two other think tanks and Washington was being visited by an important policy official from Beijing who clearly wanted to talk about arms sales as well as other issues.
In an analysis done for the Asia-Pacific Forum Newsletter, Allen Romberg of the Stimson Center, laid out a very balanced description of the present state of cross-strait relations. He made several good points, including some on the arms sales issue. He thought Beijing's refusal to establish dialogue with the Chen government increased the pressure on Bush to do something for Taiwan. I agree. But he also thought the US should put off for the time being decisions on the more sensitive arms -- as defined by the PRC -- to see whether the recent more moderate words on both sides might lead to some progress.
In a Brookings Institute Policy Brief, Kenneth Lieberthal, whose paper was about the broader subject of "US Policy Toward China," also included his views on cross-strait issues and arms sales. He seems to accept the PRC position that the AEGIS destroyer systems, because "they are natural stepping stones to anti-missile defenses that are organically linked to US systems ... reconstitute" the US-Taiwan Defense Treaty. He calls for an agreement between the two sides of the Strait (no further increase -- not withdrawal -- of missiles facing Taiwan in ex-change for no additions to Taiwan's anti-missile capability). Then he suggests that no sale of "controversial" systems to Taiwan should be made this year while an agreement is explored.
We also heard speeches by two very influential members of Congress, one a Republican member of the House, one a Democrat member of the Senate, with quite a different perspective on the arms sales issue. Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, thought sales of arms to Taiwan that had been withheld would be made this year. Importantly, he considered these necessary responses to the PRC's deployment of missiles opposite Taiwan.
Senator Max Baucus, who is well-known for his balanced position regarding US relations with both the PRC and Taiwan, made some unusually strong statements on the subject of arms sales. He charged that the PRC refused to commit to a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues, and was expanding its missile and conventional forces opposite Taiwan. He too believed less PRC provocation would diminish pressure on the US to sell arms. Without this fundamental change by the PRC, he said, the US will permit the sale of arms to Taiwan.
Against this background of open debate in the US on the subject of arms sales to Taiwan came Deputy Director Zhou Mingwei (周明偉) of the important Taiwan Office of the State Council in Beijing. His visit had been given advanced media billing, which emphasized his important posi-tion, his next generation leadership prospects, his US experience, and his polished demeanor.
It came as a surprise, there-fore, that his meetings in New York before he came to Washington received considerable media attention -- in a way that had not been expected. His presentation and responses had been hard line, and perhaps most important, included the panic-button word "war." The rationalization that preceded him in the Washington media was that he had been speaking to "pro-unification Chinese Americans," that is, spinning his words to please his audience. It was thought, by China's friends, that Zhou would be more "diplomatic" in Washington.
He was. He was also as personable and bright as had been expected. But his message was the same. In fact, some of it, such as that the people of Taiwan can make a choice as long as it is unification, or the PRC rejects dialogue with the Chen government because they don't trust him, simply do not sell well with a US audience -- a choice of one and refusal to enter dialogue are seen as a denial of democracy. Other comments, like everybody believes in "one China" and "one China" makes it impossible for Taiwan to have its own international space, seemed overly cute. But none of the above is new, just more unambiguously stated -- something the US has difficulty doing.
It is interesting how the debate on arms sales to Taiwan is so open in both the US and Taiwan (but not in the PRC). This is partially due to the democratization of Taiwan. But it is also due to US concern over PRC procurement of sophisticated weaponry, the PRC's own greater capability to develop such weaponry and the deployment of missiles facing Taiwan. The latter in particular has nothing to do with normal modernization of their military, but is only a preparation for offensive operations against Taiwan. Still, the PRC chooses to publicly press the new US president to make a choice -- say no to permitting the sale of arms to Taiwan, thereby creating a major problem for him with the Con-gress, whose support he badly needs on important domestic issues, or permit the sale and have to cope with a competitive but important relationship. The president is more likely to show strength in foreign policy and gain support for his domestic program.
We should not yet again put off a decision on the sale of AEGIS destroyers just to see what the PRC will do. We have done this before and have not seen any progress with China on a whole range of issues. We also seem to de-emphasize that even the more sophisticated equipment under consideration is defensive. The fact that it might thwart the PRC offensive objective is hardly a reason not to permit the sale. Perhaps we can make a decision that demonstrates that we will permit the sale of such equipment, but how the production line proceeds (it will take several years) could be influenced by a disassembling of PRC offensive capabilities across the Strait.
The rest of the region will be watching with keen interest how we handle this PRC challenge. It would be better if we do not, again, provide the PRC with the initiative, but put the pressure on them to contribute broader regional stability.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed here are his own.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS