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
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