I opened up my email the other day to discover my friend's nomination for blog of the year, a link to Ma Ying-jeou's blog, and an op-ed in Pacific Times from Gerrit van der Wees of FAPA. The latter relates to the recent exasperations caused by the Dept. of Defense in its visit to China, which I blogged on earlier....The US Department of Defense’s clumsy gaffes
Normally it is officials of the US State Department who make the blunders when they try to reiterate the unexplainable and fuzzy policies the US holds towards Taiwan. This time it was the Defense Department’s turn to commit the gaffes, and it was the State Department that galloped to Taiwan’s rescue. What happened?
In a couple of reports in preparation for US Defense Secretary Gates’ visit to Beijing, the American Forces Press Service published a couple of articles in which it tried – in vain - to describe US policy.
In an article by Jim Garamone on Nov. 3rd, it described US policy as being based on “a sincere desire to see reunification done in a peaceful manner”, while in another article by the same author on November 4th, the US position was inaccurately described as being “against independence for the island nation.”
On 5 November 2007, the DOD had to issue a statement that the two earlier reports had “inaccurately described” US policy. One would think that in view of the sensitivities of the issue, the DOD would get it straight the first time.
So what is US policy on these issues?
Since 1979, US policy has rested on the expectation that there has to be (not just a “sincere desire”) a peaceful RESOLUTION of the conflict in the Taiwan Strait. This is enshrined in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. The word “Reunification” has never been part of the US lexicon, and never should be.
On the issue of “independence”: from 1979 through 1998, the US was totally agnostic: it neither supported nor opposed independence, and it neither supported nor opposed unification. In 1998, President Clinton pronounced his infamous “Three Noes”, which included “no support for independence.”
However, since 1998 US officials have hastened to emphasize that this did not mean that the US “opposed” independence. It merely meant that the US does not – actively – support independence. Indeed, Mr. Clinton later added that a decision on Taiwan’s future should have the expressed consent of the people of Taiwan.
It would be good if the US government could repeat the “expressed consent of the people of Taiwan” statement a bit more often. That would be more in line with the principles of human rights and democracy which the US professes to hold so dear.
I think it would be great if US policymakers did talk more about the necessity of "consent.' But even better would be if they developed policies for coping with the current mess, which US policy helped make inevitable but nowhere explicitly addresses -- what happens when one of the populations on "both sides of the Strait" doesn't give its consent? In fact, appears likely to never give its consent?
US policymakers will tell you that the "status quo" policy addresses this, but of course, it doesn't. Since the status quo is not concretely defined -- and no sanctions are specified or even mentioned in this policy -- China can violate the Status Quo with impunity, knowing it will suffer no punishment (Taiwan, on the other hand....). Moreover the whole idea of "status quo" envisions a future that will never arrive. Alas, the future arrives anew every minute... Thus, at present, the Status Quo functions as a ritual invocation asking the protection of the gods, made whenever activity occurs in the cross-strait relationship....
At present the US appears to be hoping that Taiwan will strike a deal with China which will enable it to avoid the massive political headache of developing a policy that deals with the future....
Speaking of pro-Taiwan op-eds, the Financial Times also came out with a strong editorial on China's bombast on Tibet and Taiwan....
China has long been sensitive about threats to its territorial integrity, but there is little excuse for its prickliness. Last month Beijing condemned Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, for his “disgusting conduct” in meeting the Dalai Lama and arrogantly demanded that Canada “correct its mistaken conduct”. Mr Harper, Ms Merkel and others have defended their right to meet whom they please; the shame is that Asian nations such as Japan, as well as some Europeans, kowtow to Beijing for commercial advantage. Democracies should speak up for freedom.
The Tibet dispute is not about sovereignty. It is not unusual for democratic prime ministers and presidents to meet opposition leaders from other countries. Europe recognises Tibet as part of China, as does the Dalai Lama. Although condemned as a “splittist” by Beijing, he now calls for autonomy, not independence. He simply stands up for the Buddhist inhabitants of his homeland in the face of human rights abuses by the Chinese state.
Unlike Tibet, Taiwan’s de facto independence from the mainland is an obvious challenge to Chinese sovereignty, but even on this the Chinese leadership is too thin-skinned. Beijing’s refusal to permit a routine US naval visit to Hong Kong this week seems to have been provoked by US plans to help upgrade Taiwan’s anti-missile shield, though no reason was given.
Taiwan needs an anti-missile shield because China has threatened to attack it and has hundreds of missiles stationed for that purpose on the Chinese coast. The Dalai Lama, likewise, needs to represent his people because the Chinese state is oppressing them. Chinese leaders, rather than wondering why foreign presidents meet the Dalai Lama, should tone down their old-fashioned rhetoric and think about meeting him themselves.
Not bad. The US does not "provoke" China by selling weapons to Taiwan -- China chooses to get upset. But stuff like this is good to see. Commentators generally watch Hong Kong to see how Taiwan will go, but a better comparison is Tibet, where China annexed their country, forced the 17 Point Agreement (text, here; discussion, here) on the Tibetans, and then reneged on what they had coerced the Tibetans into accepting. Hong Kong was never independent, but both Taiwan and Tibet have been....
[Taiwan] [US] [China] [F-16] [FAPA]
13 comments:
"Beijing’s refusal to permit a routine US naval visit to Hong Kong this week seems to have been provoked by US plans to help upgrade Taiwan’s anti-missile shield, though no reason was given. "
Yes, I read about this in the SCMP this morning, although it was not tied to Taiwan. The article did imply that Beijing's reactions in the matter were mysterious (since it claimed that current ties between the US and China were pretty good), indicating that something is up, and I can think of nothing else that it might be.
You know, for all Beijing complains that Westerners don't understand China (and they often don't, to be fair) they should realize that they show a striking ignorance of Westerners quite often. The ship thing just comes across as petty. It is not a slap in the face of the US military really, since the importance of the entry of the Kitty Hawk into HK waters is not really huge. It just makes China look unfriendly to average Americans (such as the sailors on board and the family members who flew to HK to visit them, for example).... which is exactly the type of thing that Beijing should be seeking to avoid. It is the type of thing that prompts "Joe Six Pack" (thanks for the imagery, Clinton) on the street to exclaim: "Drug-tainted candies AND they refuse our honest, hardworking sailor boys some clean fun in that there Hong Kong!"
Couldn't they find some other more meaningful way to protest?
That's an interesting observation. Do you think that they really don't care about US sales to Taiwan, or are secretly relieved (gives them an excuse not to attack the island) and thus chose a pointless and petty mode of response to demonstrate their unimportance?
Thanks for the observation -- lots of people forget that non-westerners are just as dimwitted about westerners as vice versa.
Michael
I think the Kitty Hawk thing has something to do with equal treatment. Just like since US does not give landing visa to the Chinese citizens, Chain will not give landing visa to the US citizens. You don't just go to other people's water and ask for a duck without an advanced notice and expect not to wait (espically it is a nuclear military ship!) It is not a small thing, I have more respect for countries like that then our puppet countries cough Tai..cough ...wan.
Kitty Hawk is conventionally fueled. It was a scheduled visit, revoked at last minute, and the revoke reversed again, but too late. Even Xinhua can't come up with a reason, but someone here did.
Several media articles tied it to Taiwan, but Beijing didn't make that linkage public. Maybe it had something to do with the recent election in HKK. Who knows?
I can't see how having a blog would help Ma. It's not like he doesn't he's some sort of Howard Dean, riding internet popularity or something. Maybe it's kind of universal now, but to me, a mainstream politician with their own blog just seems phony.
I tend to agree. And the thing about a blog is, it is permanent in its own way. Everything you write can be recovered on Googlecache, and mistakes and gaffes are always out there. The downside risk strikes me as considerable....but Hsieh has a blog and he's not the internet candidate either. Follow the herd....
"Kitty Hawk is conventionally fueled. It was a scheduled visit, revoked at last minute, and the revoke reversed again, but too late. Even Xinhua can't come up with a reason, but someone here did."
Acutally, BBC said it is scheduled by the US but Chinese official was never notified including the previous visits (pre-BBC china source). Also, a battle fleet can't wait because of bad weather? You must be kidding me. Yes, Kitty-Hawk is conventially fuel, but do all fleet carriers carries Tomohawk missiles with nuclear warhead?
"Yes, Kitty-Hawk is conventially fuel, but do all fleet carriers carries Tomohawk missiles with nuclear warhead?"
Are you implying that the Kitty Hawk was planning a Thanksgiving attack on Hong Kong using Tomohawk missiles and nuclear warheads? Ai!
As I recall, the issue is not that the Kitty Hawk was denied entry into the port. It was that the Chinese government dickered around in its response. Had they simply announced: "NO, the Kitty Hawk cannot enter at this time because of national security grounds," people would have found it strange, but nobody would be making an issue of it. The problem was the "1) no they cannot enter, 2) yes they can because of "humanitarian reasons" (thanks so much for respecting human rights, China, especially as the ship is steaming away) response.
Arty, if you want to chalk it up to equal treatment, or if you want to declare China's rights to do what it wants with its sovereignty, then fine. I can't argue. My thoughts are simply that this odd behaviour does not make Beijing look decisive or strong. It just makes them look capricious. And that is not a good thing for an aspiring power.
In answer to Michael, yes I do think they care. But I don't think that the Chinese government always picks the most opportune moments or ways to make its points. Cancelling security meetings with Germany (irresponsible, but effective). Calling the Canadian government "disgusting" for meeting with the Dalai Lama; calling the Congressional Medal of Honor a "so called medal" out of protest for it being rewarded to the same separatist who is not one; dickering around about whether a ship can or cannot enter your waters..... pointless and poised to backfire.
The Kitty Hawk event is clearly geo-political muscle flexing, as meaningful (or meaningless) as the US Senate changing the names of their cafeteria French fries to "Freedom Fries" and then changing them back.
But I think we should all keep in mind that the US has not abandoned its 1950's-era redbaiting or subsequent Cold War attitudes about China, that it has perhaps EVOLVED, but not essentially changed.
The prevailing attitude is still that the Chinese are (godless) Communists, and though business is being done and money is being made, it doesn't mean that the US has turned its swords into ploughshares with regard to the Mainland.
Whether Americans admit it or not, it's largely endemic to the American way of thinking to bring "freedom and democracy" to the world, whether it's from a neo-conservative or progessive perspective.
I don't offer this as a challenge to anyone, just a pragmatic observation.
Considering the elevated promotion of military transparency between China and the US recently, I feel that the CCP's own conflicting interests has landed it in a gaffe this time.
The sudden decision and overturning doesn't really project a friendly image to other countries. I have a feeling the various CCP factions are a bit irked at the moment.
And one more thing. I know this is a dead thread, almost, but one quotation I read in an article in the LA Times really hits the head of the nail on this matter.
"The snafu calls into question whether a proposed military hotline between the U.S. and China would be worth the effort, said Larry M. Wortzel, a former U.S. military attache in Beijing."
This guy will not determine policy probably. But his opinion must be shared somewhere in the US military. Remember China is trying to reassure the Americans that they are willing to be transparent and work with the US military to sort out differences (such as over a small island off their coast). Then, after weeks of planning for this visit, they cancel without giving any explanation and they try to salvage it too late with some kind of lame humanitarian excuse, as if the soldiers were poor little boys that were really really needy. BIG PUBLIC RELATIONS MISTAKE. The point being that this goes past the hurt feelings of soldiers.
My thoughts are simply that this odd behaviour does not make Beijing look decisive or strong. It just makes them look capricious. And that is not a good thing for an aspiring power.
I think it probably more have to do with the person who they have to get okay with in Beijing was playing golf or the internal communication of Chinese military still need to be work on.
Post a Comment