Kenneth Lieberthal, who has just left his post as senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, wrote an article entitled US Policy Toward China, which was published on the Web site of the Brookings Institute on March 1.
In the article, Lieberthal still called for a strategic dialogue with China, instead of containment. The US should, as much as possible, according to Lieberthal, map out its China policy in accordance with Beijing's will. Lieberthal put forth six premises for the Bush administration, on which I have different opinions.
Lieberthal believes that the appearance of "a modernizing, reform-minded China that acts cooperatively with the US and behaves constructively both in the region and globally" will be beneficial for the US and Asia. He also believes that "a weaker, disorganized China" poses a greater threat. These viewpoints are acceptable theoretically.
But once China becomes a powerful country, will it be advantageous for the US and Asia? Not necessarily. Because the PRC is still ruled by a one-party communist dictatorship, its people have no right influence policy-making at a high level. Driven by fanatical nationalism, the PRC is liable to take feverish and unexpected actions. If, one day, the PRC becomes strong and is still governed by a dictatorship, I will not be surprised to see it acting against the interests of the US and Asia.
Lieberthal suggests the maintenance of a "one China" policy to ease tensions across the Taiwan Strait. It is correct theoretically, but what is "one China?" Beijing claims it to be the PRC, while Taiwan holds that it is the ROC. In the 1972 Shanghai Communique (上海公報), the US government acknowledged "one China" but did not clearly state which side represented that China. Under Clinton's rule, "one China" seemed to mean the PRC, while Taiwan almost became a province of it. The recognition runs counter to history and facts. If we make endless concessions toward Beijing's "one China" policy, tensions on both sides will never ease. The US should return to its stance of the Shanghai Communique and let the governments on both sides peacefully resolve the "one China" issue.
Lieberthal maintains that the Bush administration should help Beijing and Taipei sign an arms agreement to prevent an arms race. This is a beautiful fantasy. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has stepped up its deployment of guided missiles every year in preparation for an attack against Taiwan. It is estimated that China will have deployed 1,000 M9 and M11 missiles by 2005. The PLA has procured and manufactured SU-27 and SU-30 fighters in large quantities, and more than 400 fighters of the two types are expected to be in place by 2005. In addition, the PLA continues to buy and manufacture state-of-the-art warships and submarines. At this rate, the arms build-up will tip the balance across the Strait. Before the two sides reach an arms agreement, the best way for the US to protect Taiwan would be to sell it advanced weapons to keep a military balance, which may help prevent a war on the Strait.
I suggest the US focus on both dialogue and containment in its China policy. Through dialogue, Washington should provide Beijing with a certain degree of economic, technological and capital benefits in exchange for further opening up the China market. The US should also lead the PRC into the international community in terms of concepts, regulations and management. It should also cooperate with China to deal with issues of shared interest such as regional security, environmental protection, anti-drug and anti-AIDS programs.
When facing conflicts of interest, Washington and Beijing should negotiate through senior officials. If this does not work, the US should adopt a containment measure. The scope of the containment should cover politics, economics, military matters and diplomacy. The final goal will be to help China develop into a democratic society and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international treaties and norms. Once the PRC marches onto the democratic path and cooperates with the US sincerely, there will be no need for the containment policy.
Lieberthal still holds firm to his idea on "America's China policy," mainly because he has not deeply recognized or truly discovered the nature of the Chinese Communist Party. The PRC has always been ruled by a minority -- and even by only one person during specific periods. It wants to dominate Asia with its fanatical nationalism and "great-nation" chauvinism. Can we make a safe and peaceful world merely through dialogue when facing these lunatics who put blind faith in force? It is impossible.
The latest example is a treaty soon to be signed by Beijing and Moscow to counter the US. Beijing helps Iraq with its military build-up and turns a deaf ear to North Korea's development of long range missiles -- all these are meant to counter the US. The PLA's military expenditures are to increase by 17.2 percent in 2001 -- mainly to deal with Taiwan. Experts estimate that the actual military expenditure of the PLA is two or three times the official budget. Such being the case, why can't we adopt a containment policy along with a dialogue channel?
I am happy to see that the Bush administration is adjusting its China policy onto the right track. We cannot let Beijing have its own way. The world can never achieve peace by merely relying upon a beautiful fantasy.
Chris Wu is editor in chief of China Spring and China Affairs magazines.
Translated by Jackie Lin
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
Looking at the state of China’s economy this year, many experts have said that weak domestic demand and insufficient internal consumption might be its Achilles’ heel, with the latter being related to culture and demographics. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took office in 2013, he has been combating extravagance and corruption as well as rectifying a bad atmosphere. China expert Stephen Roach said the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) regulatory crackdown has been targeting Chinese tycoons, such as Alibaba Group Holding Ltd founder Jack Ma (馬雲), and opposing what the CCP defines as “excessively extravagant lifestyles,” such as playing too
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use