Pages

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Georgia=Taiwan, Saakashvili=Chen...

Richard Bush and Kenneth Lieberthal, both probable future advisors to future President Obama, have another piece on the Georgia-Taiwan comparison, this time in the Wall Street Journal. The fundamental premises of this piece are similar to those of the Jeff Bader/Douglas Paal essay that I looked at a week ago, but WSJ has finally taken the important step of noting that one of the writers, Ken Lieberthal, has business interests in China, something the media almost never does. Kudos to WSJ for doing that! Please note that I have no objection to people having business interests in China, just to that fact being left out of their background when they comment on US-China policy.

The underlying premises of this article are the bogus ones of Mad Chen©, provoker of worlds, the great bogeyman of US foreign policy. Bush and Lieberthal argue that if the US had not restrained Chen, he might have provoked a war with China. Yeah, my Dad used to hang garlic on the trees when we went camping, saying it would keep the bears away. And we never saw a single bear in our campsite, either.....

Yet in recent years, the basic dynamics of the two countries have been remarkably similar. Both have had politically skillful, democratically elected heads of state who were determined to consolidate the independent identity and sovereignty of the territory they ruled. Each confronted a major power -- Russia for Georgia and China for Taiwan -- that felt it had legitimate historical rights to curtail the full exercise of sovereignty by the feisty smaller government. And each appealed to the United States for support. The leaders of Taiwan and Georgia had reason to believe they had a strong ally in President George W. Bush, who had declared a robust agenda of promoting democracy and freedom. They were acting, they said, to realize the democratic aspirations of their people.

The problem is that the Georgia-Taiwan comparison is spurious -- Taiwan is a lot more like South Ossetia than Georgia itself. No one disputed the sovereignty of Georgia itself, at issue was the sovereignty of the breakaway region of South Ossetia --just as what is at issue here is whether Taiwan can enjoy its own sovereignty. Just to keep playing that game, South Ossetia even held a referendum on independence that was condemned by the western democracies, just as Chen Shui-bian had referendums that were (shamefully and cravenly) condemned by the western democracies. Onward and upward....

.....Georgia has become the scene of the most serious post-Cold War great-power conflict, while recent political change in Taiwan has greatly enhanced cross-Strait stability and provides reason for optimism about the future.

There is no reason for optimism about the election of Ma Ying-jeou -- unless your policy is to annex the island to China. But that is not the worst part of this piece.... first comes a substantial misrepresentation of US behavior:

But over time Mr. Bush moved to a more tempered approach that increasingly took into serious account Beijing's concerns as well as Taiwan's pleadings. He recognized that the most serious threat to Taiwan was conflict through miscalculation, as an independence-leaning political initiative by Taiwan's president Chen Shui-bian might provoke a Chinese military attack, whether justified or not. The Bush administration therefore developed a nuanced American policy that publicly put the United States squarely in opposition to any unilateral change to the status quo by either Beijing or Taipei.

Read that last statement carefully. The Administration's actual policy (nuanced policy, mind you!) was not opposition to unilateral change in the status quo by either side -- it was loud opposition to Taiwan's democracy on one side, and quiet acquiescence in China's military build up in other. This produced the obscene picture of US spokesmen using the same language to condemn Taiwan's democratic referendum on the UN -- which could never succeed -- as it did to condemn the Anti-secession Law, and more importantly, to scream at Chen Shui-bian in unseemly, exaggerated ways, while only whimpering now and then as China's military build-up made radical revisions to the status quo.

In other words, Bush's policy was not a preservation of the status quo but a response to China's change of it, and that response was to serve China's interests by hacking on Taiwan. But that is not the worst of this piece:

In Taiwan, by contrast, 2008 has witnessed the election of a moderate leader, Ma Ying-jeou, whose electoral prospects were bolstered in part by America's clear indications of its displeasure with the willingness of former president Mr. Chen to provoke China. Under President Ma we are seeing hopeful initiatives to stabilize cross-Strait relations in ways that hold out the prospect for improving Taiwan's economy, reducing the military threat from China, preserving Taiwan's democratic system of governance, and increasing America's capacity to work with China on the North Korea nuclear issue and other serious international concerns.

Here Bush and Lieberthal brag about how the US helped get a longtime democracy activist, independence advocate, and friend of the US removed from office, to be replaced by a pro-China, lifelong anti-democracy politician who patronizes the US, despises our regional ally Japan, and wants to see Taiwan annexed to China. In the topsy-turvy world of US Establishment China policy, progress is when you blow a hole in the security system you spent 50 years assembling and nurturing. And just this week China announced that it was beginning to train carrier pilots....

Skipping over the pro-forma claim "Chen provokes China," look at the other claims Bush and Lieberthal make:

Under President Ma we are seeing hopeful initiatives to stabilize cross-Strait relations in ways that hold out the prospect for improving Taiwan's economy, reducing the military threat from China, preserving Taiwan's democratic system of governance

What is there to say? The "initiatives" that Ma is taking in cross-strait relations are almost all DPP initiatives, though they were negotiating from a much stronger position than President Regional Administrator Ma. The ideas that Ma has offered independently, such as the diplomatic truce, have been failures to the present and appear likely to fail permanently - indeed, from what I have heard from individuals interacting with Chinese officials and scholars, there has been a uniform hardening of the Chinese position since Ma was elected. The Chinese simply do not see any reason to give Ma anything, and it appears likely that they will not. Perhaps things will change, but at this point there is no reason to suspect China will mature (see the recent letter on participation in UN special agencies from the Chinese government smacking down Ma). Mayhap the US will put pressure on it to make some cosmetic concessions, which will be trumpeted by one and all as progress.

In other words, political change here has not enhanced stability in the Taiwan Strait as Bush and Lieberthal claim -- instead it has introduced new instabilities and uncertainties by giving China the upper hand and sacrificing the interests of US allies Japan and Taiwan, as well as introducing the new and ominously opaque uncertainty: how far is Ma willing to go? But as we all know, the greatness of a realpolitik decision is measured by the number of friends it betrays....

Moreover, Ma is not the one running the KMT talks with China -- those appear to be in the hands of other politicians within the KMT who have long been negotiating through back-channels with China. Thus "stability" is an illusion -- no one really knows what is being said in the private KMT-Beijing talks, or what the limits are. Scary, eh? But at least there won't be any more of those dangerous and provocative referendums, which are so much like shelling civilians.

UPDATE: One thing I wanted to draw attention to is the tone of these recent pieces on Georgia and Taiwan. There's almost a defensive flavor to this stream of writing with its attacks on Chen and justifications for the Establishment's we've-brought-order-to-the-galaxy position -- as if, deep down, people know that what was done was not right.

12 comments:

  1. Sorry, I know I am beating a dead horse when I say this, but I personally think that it can't be said enough. As you noted, these are probable advisers of Obama, a man who has still demonstrated no knowledge of Asia. While some may vote for him for other reasons, it is still good for them to know that they may be inadvertantly pushing Taiwan further into the mire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, what can you expect? Here's a reason why Americans have such poor geographic and political knowledge. These places aren't part of the mental map of most Americans, so it's easy for pundits and policymakers to say whatever they want. Don't worry: We won't ask questions.

    The other trend is obvious. The US has had too long of a history doing business with dictatorships and not in support of almost any democractically-elected government.

    (I have to add this: Max Keiser, a Paris-based finance analyst, said in a interview last night on Al-Jazeera that the US has effectively become like a "Soviet Union," by taking over and nationalizing its banks and industries, while China is slowly becoming a capitalist one.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. After all Obama DID live in Asia for a portion of his life (not under arrest) and grew up in a state with a higher population of East Asians. His sister is half Asian. Or are we not considering Indonesia "Asia" because it is not Confucian?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Georgia=Taiwan, Saakashvili=Chen...

    -------------------------

    you should try this;

    Georgia = PRC
    Abhasia = Taiwan
    USA = Russian Federation
    Korea = Osetia

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't get the whole Georgia thing. Yes Russia bullied Georgia. At the same time Georgia was bullying around two provinces that wanted to be independent and even had referendums with overwhelming support for independence.

    Taiwan has no area that wants to declare independence from it. The great majority of Taiwanese just want, in addition to their de facto independence, recognition by the rest of the world that they are independent from China. It's also been independent of China for over a 100 years and independent in its own right for over 50, very much unlike the rather new states of Georgia and Russia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    Yes, where the hell are these comparisons coming from?

    ReplyDelete
  6. (I have to add this: Max Keiser, a Paris-based finance analyst, said in a interview last night on Al-Jazeera that the US has effectively become like a "Soviet Union," by taking over and nationalizing its banks and industries, while China is slowly becoming a capitalist one.)

    I am no finance analyst, but I strongly disagree with Keiser.

    The U.S. is not nationalizing anything. In fact, the U.S. (under war-criminal neocons) have gone nuts privatising such things as the military (ever hear of "Blackwater"?) and have given huge no-bid contracts to Halliburton and the like. The big corporations are the ones running the U.S. government -- not the other way around. That is one of the elements of "Fascism" or, more accurately, it is "Corporatism" -- NOT Communism, as was the case in the Soviet Union.

    Michael,

    Do I have to remind you again? "Up" is "Down". "Black" is "White". "War" is "Peace". Etc., etc., etc...

    In Theoretical Physics, it's called "The Bush Principle". (not to be confused with the "Bush Doctrine", which Sarah Palin discovered the other day).
    .
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. "After all Obama DID live in Asia for a portion of his life (not under arrest) and grew up in a state with a higher population of East Asians."

    You are correct if you are referring to childhood memories. Obama lived in Indonesia for four years, until he was 10, and that was 35 years ago. I don't equate that with knowledge of Asia. How much did you notice about the politics of where you grew up before you were 10, and how relevant are the politics of that area from 35 years ago to the politics of today?

    ReplyDelete
  8. On what occasions have either of the presidential candidates during this election cycle "demonstrated any knowledge of Asia?" Do we really know what Obama knows about Asia? Not only did he live in Indonesia for sometime as a child, but his mother was an anthropologist who studied Indonesia, lived in Indonesia, and married an Indonesian man. Judging from the Sarah Palin rule of foreign policy, I would think that his experience in Hawai'i--a place where there are actually a lot of Asians--gave him some knowledge of Asia. Who knows? Eight years of a Republican rule really has done a lot to improve Taiwan's situation. Four more years!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wulingren, I posted on here a week ago about the differences in the Republican and Democratic Asia platforms.

    From the Taiwan News article (sorry, the link requires a login):

    "The Democratic Party Platform contains 19 lines dealing with Asia, 11 of them on Taiwan.

    By contrast, the Republican Party Platform has 98 lines dealing with Asia, 15 of them on the Taiwan Relations Act, and 29 dealing with China. Important countries have become independent, among them Taiwan. Treated as separate from China, Taiwan is listed ahead of China.

    The Democratic Party Platform just cites the “One China Policy” and the “Taiwan Relations Act” in a general way and also expresses support for the status quo in cross-Strait ties saying that this was beneficial for the people of Taiwan and in harmony with their wishes. It is also the peaceful way of resolving the issue.

    Democratic policies regarding China bear no connection with cross-Strait ties. For example, they urge China to play a more responsible and cooperative role in the areas of climate change, trade, and energy. China is encouraged to have a more open society and a free market economy. The policies also urge China to respect public opinion, the media, public gatherings, religion, Internet freedom, labor, and human rights in Tibet.

    Republican Party policies are more detailed when it comes to cross-Strait ties. They warn China not to act recklessly against Taiwan. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. is obliged to help defend Taiwan. The policies state that the U.S. should help Taiwan join the World Health Organization and other international bodies.

    A significant point is that the Republican Party Platform does not cite the One China Policy, but states that the U.S. would abide by the Taiwan Relations Act. "

    This, combined with the fact that Obama has said next to nothing about Asia at all during this campaign, combined with his list of potential advisors, combined with his VP choice makes me less than optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pandas and missiles: the double message to China’s tiny neighbour

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4775765.ece

    ReplyDelete
  11. This might have been posted already, but FAPA has compiled quotes from Obama and McCain about China.

    Here is Obama's statement on Taiwan's presidential election:

    "The people of Taiwan deserve our respect and admiration for this free and fair election, which is just the latest step in consolidating a democracy that has advanced over the last two decades. I hope the People’s Republic of China responds to this election in a positive, constructive, and forward-leaning way. It is important for Beijing to demonstrate to the people of Taiwan that the practical and non-confrontational approach that President-elect Ma promises to take toward the Mainland will be met with good faith and progress. The PRC should reduce the military threat to Taiwan by drawing back the missiles it has deployed in southeast China and by other security confidence-building measures. And on issues such as Taiwan’s observer status in the World Health Organization, where the health of all Chinese people is at stake, it should allow Taiwan greater international space.

    The United States should respond to Ma Ying-jeou’s election by rebuilding a relationship of trust and support for Taiwan’s democracy. The U.S. should reopen blocked channels of communication with Taiwan officials. We should continue to provide the arms necessary for Taiwan to deter possible aggression. And we should encourage both Taipei and Beijing to build commercial, cultural, and other ties, laying the groundwork for a closer relationship and ultimately movement toward resolution of their differences. We should maintain our 'one China' policy, our adherence to the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques concerning Taiwan, and observance of the Taiwan Relations Act, which lays out the legal basis for our relationship."

    While I am not too happy about his support of the "one China" policy, I do like the rest of what he says here. He also said the following back in 2007:

    "As I have said in the past, China's rise offers great opportunity but also poses serious challenges. It is critical the U.S. do all it can to ensure that China's rise is peaceful and its trade practices fair, and under those conditions, the United States should welcome China's continuing emergence and prosperity.

    At the same time, we must remain prepared to respond should China’s rise take a problematic turn. This means maintaining our military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthening our alliances, and making clear to both Beijing and Taipei that a unilateral change in the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is unacceptable.

    Also, though today China's military spending is one-tenth of ours, we must monitor closely China's strategic capabilities while also pushing for greater transparency of its defense activities."

    ReplyDelete
  12. For those still reading this thread, Here, is an interesting though slightly dated article on Obama's foreign policy team:

    "As Obama rapidly transitioned from a senator with less than three years in office to a presidential candidate who has delivered detailed policy speeches, he has assembled a personal think tank that easily outsizes any of the established Washington policy institutes that provide intellectual fodder for the political war of ideas.

    On foreign policy alone, some 200 experts are providing the Obama campaign with assistance of some sort, arranged into 20 subgroups. On the domestic front, more than 500 policy experts are contributing ideas, campaign aides said. Veterans of previous election campaigns say the scale of the policy operation resembles the full-blown effort candidates typically undertake for a general election campaign rather than the more stripped-down versions common for the primary season."

    There is also this interesting quote about not just focusing on what the candidates are saying, or I might add, the party platforms:

    "The worldviews of the advisers candidate George W. Bush gathered around him turned out to predict his foreign policies better than his campaign rhetoric that America should be "humble" in the world and avoid commitments to nation-building.

    Such architects of the Iraq war as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice and Richard Perle all were influential policy advisers to Bush's presidential campaign. Colin Powell made important public appearances on behalf of candidate Bush but remained distant from the campaign's foreign policy deliberations, foreshadowing the role he would play in the run-up to the Iraq war.

    Obama built relationships with high-powered policy experts even before he was elected to the Senate."

    There is also this article about McCain's Brain Trust, which shows his top advisors:

    "The McCain campaign's foreign policy coordinator is Randy Scheunemann, a former top legislative aide for Republicans on Capitol Hill, including two former leaders of the Senate, Trent Lott and Bob Dole. Former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin coordinates economic policy. On national security issues, McCain receives advice from several generations of Republican strategists and former top foreign policy officials such as Henry Kissinger and Richard Armitage, often grouped in the realist camp of foreign policy, as well as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, leading neoconservative voices. The campaign lists Kagan as a leading foreign policy adviser, as noted below, along with State Department veteran Richard Williamson, former top defense and national security official Peter W. Rodman, and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, who advises on national security and energy issues."

    Now, it seems that both Obama and McCain have both picked some of the usual suspects from their parties policy establishments. However, notice some of the top names on McCain's list: William Kristol, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey. These are the so-called neo-cons, the same people that were pushing the Iraq War from the beginning, and who have been pushing for war with Iran. Do you really think this crew is going to be different than the Bush crew? It's the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) all over again. Yes, I'm sure that will be good for Taiwan.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.