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 an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
RSS