Taiwan, China, Athens, Sparta

My thanks to Those Who Dare for a link to this article on China vs. Taiwan from the Navy war college. The opening section of the article is interesting as comparative history but superficial, but as it passes into an analysis of local politics, in several places it spews forth a bizarre line of arrogant, almost ethnocentric thinking common among US commentators, that the ruling DPP is composed of madmen with no connection to reality.

Taiwan's apparent overconfidence in the ability and willingness of the United States to defend it during a cross-Strait conflict suggests that Taipei harbors similar hope. Some observers have warned that Taipei's behavior in the past few years, especially following President George W. Bush's 2001 pledge to do "whatever it [takes] to help Taiwan defend herself," reflects a misguided calculation that Washington's support is and will remain unconditional.28 President Chen's provocative referendum bid prior to the most recent presidential elections seemed to confirm his faith in the United States.29 In other words, Chen, encouraged by Bush's words, may have concluded that he holds a blank check from Washington to push his agenda, regardless of how Beijing reacts.

It is hard to imagine that anyone could seriously believe that Chen Shui-bian sits in his Presidential Office with no knowledge of history or international politics, and no one to advise him on these issues, nurturing a perfect faith in the commitment of the United States to Taiwan's defense. Chen is not a stupid man -- he has beaten the preferred candidate of the US twice -- and his foreign minister, Mark Chen, is not a stupid man. Nor is the National Security Council of Taiwan staffed with stupid people, nor are Taiwan's defense experts stupid. So please let's stop with asinine accusations like this.

And let's also quit adopting the language of the pro-China crowd. Chen did not "provoke" China by staging a referendum -- by carrying out a democratic process in a democracy. China grew angered -- actually, probably pretended to be angry -- at Chen's expansion of democracy in Taiwan.

Far from being chastened by President Bush's rebuke over the referendum issue or Chen's setback in the December 2004 legislative elections, independence-minded leaders in Taiwan have continued to goad China.30 The logjam in the Legislative Yuan over the U.S. arms package provides further evidence of a belief among Taiwanese leaders that Washington's defense commitments are absolute. In a stunning display of naivete', one opposition member reportedly argued that since Taiwan could not possibly defend itself, even with new weaponry, the island should simply hope for American intervention.31 Another, responding to American pleas to approve the arms package, likened the United States to a "mafia leader" demanding "protection money."3

This paragraph shows an unbelievable confusion. First the writer discusses "independence-minded" leaders and then mentions the "logjam in the Legislative Yuan" over the defense spending package. The naive reader could be forgiven for assuming that the leaders in the first sentence there are the same as in the second. But that is not actually the case. The arms package is opposed by the anti-independence crowd; Chen supports it. Nowhere do the writers make this clear, as it would profoundly contradict the idea that Chen is some kind of wild man who thinks the US has given him a blank check. DPP pursuit of the arms package demonstrates that party's commitment to the defense of the island and the US alliance. Isn't it time the US reciprocated by ceasing to insult Chen's intelligence and ability with such ridiculous comments?

The rest of the paragraph offers some stupidities by the opposition, three parties who hate Chen, and whom Chen has nothing to do with. How does the stupidty of the KMT and its brethren mean anything for Chen's view of US intervention? Further, the last comment is not an act of naivete but a very apt description of the US attitude toward the arms package, which does not appear to help Taiwan very much. It would probably be better if the money were spent on another 400-600 fighter aircraft, air-to-air missiles, airfield suppression weaponry, command and control systems, mutual training programs, permanent military liaisons, and other things Taiwan desperately needs. And the Aegis destroyers the author mentions will be so many expensive targets in a real war. But that is by-the-by.

In any case, the presentation here conflates two entirely different parties and positions, and misleads the reader. However, the writers do appear to be aware that Taiwan's parties are "deeply-divided." Yes, into one set that wants to sell the island to Beijing, and another that wants to make it independent. That's about as deep a divide as it comes.

Insulting, ethnocentric, colonialist crap like this needs to cease appearing in documents from US strategists:

At the same time, the United States should remain vigilant about Taiwanese actions that could trigger a Chinese military response. In their discussions with Taiwanese leaders, U.S. leaders should attempt to inject a measure of realism into Taipei's strategic thinking.

Comments like this are almost comical coming from the Naval War College of a nation that invaded Iraq and savaged its economy and position in the world for no good reason at all...in reality, the leadership in need of realism sits in the White House. I note, once again, that Chen has beaten the wealthiest political party in the world, backed by both China and the US, twice. You don't get to the Presidential Palace in Taipei by being stupid and unrealistic, especially when you represent the democracy forces. And I note, once again, that it is Chen's party that supports the arms deal. And I note once again, it was the US President who issued a very public and very blank check to Taiwan -- "whatever it takes" -- that had no connection to reality, a comment for which there is no evidence the Taiwan President actually believes. I hope their next article presents a fairer picture of Taiwan politics, and of President Chen. And takes a more balanced view of the behavior of the US.

[Taiwan] [China]