The US preparation for military action against Iraq has met a variety of responses in the international community. Discussion on the matter in Taiwan tends to simplify the position of some countries, however. The public, for example, seems mostly to consider Beijing's position to be one of opposition to US military action. This is an inaccurate interpretation of Beijing's stance and of trends in Sino-US relations.
When a reporter at a press conference on Jan. 30 asked Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhang Qiyue (
On Feb. 3, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan (
So what is China's calculation? First, Chinese officials calculate unanimously that Iraq has almost no prospect of winning a war with the US. The overwhelming consensus among these officials is that the US will not take long to secure victory. Opposition to the use of military force, therefore, would be of little point.
When NATO took military action against Yugoslavia, China was opposed. Politics apart, China's opposition was partly due to its calculation that NATO had little chance of success and that NATO might get bogged down in a long, drawn-out war. It is now evident that China, apart from making an erroneous prediction, also found out that there is nothing to be gained from disagreeing with the US.
In addition, Russia's position is also doubtful. On Jan. 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that "if Iraq begins to make problems for the work of the inspectors, then Russia may change its position and agree with the United States on the development of different, tougher UN Security Council decisions." It is clear that Russia has no firm intention of opposing the US position.
Although France and Germany oppose the US position, their reactions are within the scope of the usual points of contention between the US and Europe. There is no advantage for China in aligning herself with France and Germany. No such alignment could compensate for the losses China would suffer from the deterioration in Sino-US relations that would inevitably follow. The Sino-US relationship will remain of paramount importance.
In fact, the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime by the US would not necessarily redound to China's detriment. Besides the fact that a reduction in oil prices would be conducive to China's economic development, post-war reconstruction would provide Beijing with tremendous business opportunities in serving the likely demand for consumer goods and labor.
More importantly, the reconstruction of Iraq's political order would be a good opportunity for China to bring her international influence into full play. The war in Afghanistan, for example, has almost entirely been fought by the US alone, but China is among the important members of the "six plus two" group in the post-war reconstruction process. And because Iraq is an Islamic country, opposition to Western democracy is inevitable.
As a Third World country, China has always maintained good relations with Iraq. The Iraqi people have no enmity with China. Beijing, therefore, can play an important role and serve as a bridge. Because reconstruction work is far more difficult than military affairs and also has implications for US President George W. Bush's political reputation and prospects for reelection, the possibility of the US taking the opportunity to work closely with China will be even greater.
On Feb. 12, the Egyptian government-controlled newspaper al-Ahram held an interview with US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell said that the US hopes for a "peaceful solution" to the Iraqi problem. Now, with war apparently imminent, Powell's statement actually suggests that the US still hopes to subdue the enemy without going to war. The Iraqi government has continued to send out messages of reconciliation. There is still hope.
Should China decide to issue a formal statement against military action, that will possibly be a sign that a peaceful solution is in the offing. In any case, the key is the arrangements for a new order in Iraq and the Middle East, where Beijing can possibly exercise its influence. It is still too early to jump to a conclusion or even choose sides.
Chang Kuo-cheng is the former deputy director of the DPP's Chinese Affairs Department.
Translated by Grace Shaw
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS