Kitty Hawkin' France

Last year China offered us L'Affaire Kitty Hawk (my long blogpost). Readers may recall that China had denied the US carrier Kitty Hawk entry into Hong Kong port for a normal Thanksgiving visit, an event followed by truculent explanations, but which in the end appeared to be a communciations eff-up. About the same time it also denied two US minesweepers entry into Hong Kong during a storm, a far more serious affront to the laws of the sea.

What many observers felt was strange was China's abuse of the US Navy, because the Navy had done its level best to get along with the Chinese, treating them better than almost any other branch of the US government. Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report observed at the time: "... China has had NO better friend, in terms of adult supervision of the relationship, than the US Navy."

The fact is that there is nothing strange about this behavior; it is perfectly normal. Let's expand on what I noted last year:

Anyone who has observed China's relations with the outside world for any length of time has seen this pattern again and again. In the midst of negotiations with the Vatican, it consecrates two bishops for the state Church. In the midst of negotiations over the Olympic Torch coming to Taiwan, it denies a visa to the representative of the city of Kaohsiung to discuss the games to be held there in 2009. Arriving in India for negotiations, its ambassador announces a whole Indian state is part of China. Last year the Chinese government shut down an expat magazine in China that was widely considered the most sympathetic and supportive expat rag in that nation. After attending the ASEAN meeting in November where it has positive interactions with ASEAN members, it immediately goes out and holds war games in waters disputed by those nations, without informing them. And of course China gets the Olympics with promises to upgrade its rights situation, yet crackdowns on the internet and journalists intensify, while state security arrests double. Catch the pattern?

Now it's France's turn to be thanked for its hard work on behalf of China. Frankly I think it is wonderful that the Chinese are attacking France. France has been the one nation that has consistently supported China, emphasizing its "special relationship" and repeatedly arguing that the EU should break the weapons embargo caused by Tiananmen. It's hard to know who to laugh at more here, the Chinese for protesting against one of their best friends, or France for imagining that friendship with China would ever be reciprocated. Welcome to China France -- you've been Kitty Hawked!

Of course, the spectre of Kitty Hawkin' also raises the question of what China will do to Ma Ying-jeou after he sucks up to Beijing.

Sadly, some of the amusing aspects of this affair faded yesterday as a westerner was attacked outside a Carrefour there for the crime of being a westerner. Let's hope it was just an isolated thing.

The protests raise another issue: that of the economy. In the public mind Tiananmen is popularly linked with democracy protests though the issue is surely more complex than that, but that year, even though official figures showed comfortable economic growth, the reality was that there was a recession and local incomes shrank. No wonder there were protests. I'm curious whether what is happening with the outwardly-focused protests is an example of displaced anger that otherwise might be focused on the government for rising food prices, especially given China's wildly unequal distribution of income....

[Taiwan] [China] [Kitty Hawk] [France]

Catapulting the Propaganda

The powerful effect of pro-China propagandizing is seen in this translation of a piece from the Asia Times on the US Nimitz deployment to Japan, arguing that it is linked to the Taiwan election in March:

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz of the US Navy arrived in Japan on 11 February. An analysis maintains that the deployment of the aircraft carrier is a step the United States has taken to make sure that, during Taiwan's presidential election and UN membership referendum on 22 March, there will be at least two aircraft carrier battle groups in West Pacific so that they can effectively deter the eruption of a clash in the Taiwan Strait.

One newspaper maintains that USS Nimitz is to replace the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier that will soon be decommissioned. However, according to The Navy Times, the deployment of USS Nimitz in West Pacific is not permanent, but was done merely to reinforce the United States' military strength in this part of the world; and that USS Washington will be the aircraft carrier that will replace USS Kitty Hawk in the future. Explaining the deployment of USS Nimitz aircraft carrier in Japan, US Navy says USS Nimitz' temporary commission is necessitated by the maintenance that USS Kitty Hawk needs. However, The Navy Times notes that the commission of USS Nimitz in West Pacific is a routine deployment based on the Navy's "Fleet Response Plan" as well as a real and important drill of the plan.

The "Fleet Response Plan" was adopted by the US Navy in 2003. According to this plan, US Navy can simultaneously deploy six aircraft carrier battle groups to any danger zone around the world within 30 days and then reinforce the deployment with two additional aircraft carrier battle groups within three months. This has
significantly enhanced the US Navy's capabilities of dealing with any crisis and at the same time made it difficult for an adversary to find an opportunity to attack US aircraft carriers. As for the US Navy's explanation that USS Kitty Hawk is in need of maintenance, one analysis maintains that it is not quite plausible that USS Kitty Hawk has to be maintained before it will be decommissioned this year. One noteworthy fact is that, after USS Kitty Hawk is decommissioned, the aircraft that will take its place will be USS Washington aircraft carrier, which is also a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier like the USS Nimitz. Thus, USS Nimitz' deployment in Japan also has the function of making preparations for USS Washington's permanent stationing in Japan.

The Navy Times report notes that USS Kitty Hawk will not leave Japan for home after the arrival of USS Nimitz; and that it will not leave Japan for home until the second half of 2008. This means that, during the time of Taiwan's presidential election, the United States will have two aircraft battle groups in waters adjacent to the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Strait will be at its most dangerous situation in March this year. The situation will be both delicate and complex. Whether the mainland will take a military stance prior to the election on 22 March to influence the election outcome and whether Chen Shuibian will overreact by provoking the mainland to attack in case the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] will be completely defeated during the election may trigger a clash in the Taiwan Strait.

The United States certainly fully understands this situation. It has time and again stressed that it does not want to see the eruption of a clash in the Taiwan Strait. The mission of the upcoming deployment of the USS Nimitz battle group in this part of the world is believed to be one of preventing a clash and not one of supporting Taiwan's DPP government. In other words, it is a mission different from the one in 1996 when the United States dispatched two aircraft carriers to help defend Taiwan when the mainland intimidated Taiwan with two missile exercises during Taiwan first presidential election at that time.

[deleted paragraph on how much more powerful Nimitz is]

Moreover, the aircraft carrier's escorts, Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers, also have powerful fighting power. Modern Aegis-equipped ships are also equipped with "Standard 3" intercepting missiles. The deployment of USS Nimitz, the most powerful nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, in West Pacific shows that the United States is following closely the situation in the Taiwan Strait, and that it wants to assume a powerful stance to prevent an eruption of any clash between the two sides of the strait. Of course, the most important purpose of the deployment is to maintain the United States' leading status and geopolitical interests in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Both KMT politicians and Chinese leadership have repeatedly expressed to foreigners that they are worried that Chen Shui-bian might do something crazy, and incredibly, it is possible to write in a piece of serious analysis that A-bian will start a war if the DPP loses the Presidential election. Mad Chen lives! The importance of repetition here cannot be overestimated -- the more the KMT and China keep repeating it, the more people will stop noticing how stupid it is. That's right -- Beijing and the KMT claim a lame duck Taiwanese president will use a military dominated by a pro-KMT officer corps, overseen by a legislature controlled by the pro-China side, to start a war with China that will have zero public support, and which has no international backing. Right. I hope the US military hasn't bought into this nonsense. Observe, though, how the it nicely sets up a Chinese military action against Taiwan -- one could easily imagine a suborned officer in the Taiwanese military creating a provocation for China's sake.....and then China saying "See? We warned you...." Good to see the US carriers out there....

Simon Tisdall has a piece in the Guardian (found on this blog) that emphasizes China's deployment of soft power in annexing Taiwan. The first paragraph terminates in a reference to that very common media/propaganda trope, Taiwan as the wild child in need of discipline, which will be supplied by the authority of Beijing:

Hardliners in Washington, Beijing and Taipei continue to warn of an explosive military confrontation between China and the US as Taiwan’s short-fuse presidential election draws close. But growing evidence suggests hawks on both sides are purposefully exaggerating the risks. Rather than threatening war, China is increasingly relying on non-military means to bring its “renegade province” to heel.

"bringing something to heel" is an act of discipline. It is a shame that clearer language, like annex, or expand, is not used in the media. Note the term "renegade province" which is purely an invention of the western media and has never been used by Beijing -- good that Tisdall put it in quotes. Tisdall's language assumes that Taiwan is part of China -- Taiwan is being "brought back into the fold." Newsman are so used to deploying such metaphors, I doubt it ever crossed his mind that Taiwan has never been part of the PRC....Tisdall also claims that support for independence has fallen to only 19% (due, of course, to China's soft power) but cites no poll for this, entirely missing how thoroughly mainstream a Taiwan identity is nowadays....

UPDATE: Of course, Tisdall did refer to the "pro-China KMT." Thanks, Simon!

UPDATE II: Tisdall apparently got his information from the Mainland Affairs Council Poll. Apparently he added together the two items for independence, got 19%, and concluded that support for independence is falling. Note that the same process for annexation as an option also produces falling numbers. What is actually happening is support for the status quo is rising. Yet an uncertain but surely large number of people in the column "status quo now, decision later" must support independence.

[Taiwan] [media]

The Kitty Hawk Confrontation Crisis

The China Times reported on this; Kyodo News picked it up:

A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer in November last year shadowed U.S. warships in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a 28-hour standoff that brought the group to a battle-ready halt in the tense waters, a report in a Taiwan daily said Tuesday.

The confrontation occurred as the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and other ships in its battle group were heading back to Japan following China's sudden cancellation of a long-scheduled holiday port call in Hong Kong, the China Times said, citing U.S. military sources.

The carrier strike group encountered Chinese destroyer Shenzhen and a Song-class sub in the strait on Nov. 23, causing the group to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation, the Chinese-language daily reported.

Apparently the destroyer and sub were on their way to the historical port call in Japan. The original report was in the China Times, so grain of NaCl may apply.

[Taiwan]

Last Two Nelson Reports: Taiwan Highlights

Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report is back from surgery and once again passing around insight into the Beltway Mind. Here's his latest excerpt on Taiwan affairs:

++++++++++++++

It sounds like the private Chinese discussions of late mirror almost exactly much of the substance of concerns aired at Heritage, including what Taiwan law may require in the event either of the UN membership referenda are passed.

Both US and Chinese experts seem increasingly convinced that one or the other will pass, although no one can predict that a DPP presidential victory automatically means the DPP referendum also will be approved...and vice versa for the KMT.

But the real concern in both Washington and Beijing, at least, is that the DPP's Frank Hsieh will be president-elect, and also be faced with a successful DPP referendum AND a legal claim by President Chen that it has the force of law, no matter what Chen promised AIT's Ray Burghardt. [MT: This was corrected in the subsequent report:

CORRECTIONS...in last night's Report (12/18) we mistakenly wrote that Taiwan president Chen Shuibian had already contradicted his promise to AIT head Ray Burghardt that the DPP referendum...if passed in March...would not have the force of law.

We seem to have misunderstood a press question at the excellent Heritage Foundation discussion earlier in the day, and thought that a "what if" actually was a "he just said" problem.]

The US has long been concerned about China's propensity for actions which seem disproportionate to the practical reality of DPP actions in a real world...see the Anti-Secession Law, especially.[MT: this would seem to imply that the State Department's position is that if it doesn't talk at Taiwan, China will launch fighters.]

And China has long been concerned that even though it appreciates the strong rhetorical position of the Bush Administration toward DPP actions the US considers to be a risk to the peaceful status-quo, the US continues with manifestations of support (especially arms sales) which undercut the tough US line.[MT: But Jimmy Carter revealed last month that the Chinese had privately agreed to US arms sales in 1979. Isn't it time someone reminded them? ]

So, in a sense, both China and the US now worry about what China may feel compelled to do, perhaps against its enlightened self-interest, in the event of a DPP sweep of the presidency and referendum votes.[MT: Yes, we heard this rhetoric in 2000. And in 2004. Four years later, a millon Taiwanese have sunk $150 billion into China and everyone moves freely in and out. China can send a concrete signal any time it likes by acting against Taiwanese interests in China. Instead, it has successfully transferred the costs of deterrence to the US-Taiwan relationship. ]

The Bush/Yang, and now the Sun Yafu private meetings all seem aimed by China as spurring the US, and Bush personally, to even greater efforts to head-off the referendum vote.

We asked Amb. Joseph Wu about that after his eloquent, even passionate defense of his president and the referendum at Heritage, and Dr. Wu frankly warned that at this point, there is no turning back...the vote on both the DPP and KMT referendum will take place as scheduled.

Among the practical risks being incurred by Taiwan, discussants agreed, is that whatever one may think of the justice of the cause, the DPP policy puts in motion a dynamic in which China will feel justified in...for example...pressing for a UNGA [UN General Assembly] vote specifically endorsing Beijing's policy on "one China"...and perhaps even more likely, accelerating Beijing's "Dollar Diplomacy" against Taiwan's remaining formal diplomatic recognition partners around the world.[MT: It is highly unlikely that China will ever strip the ROC of its remaining diplomatic partners. That would isolate Taiwan and leave it unconnected to any version of China, encouraging further independence moves. A UN General Assembly vote is, from the propaganda standpoint, a thing to be feared.]

At risk of getting ourselves into trouble, we felt it was notable that discussants John Tkacik, Harvey Feldman and others, even though clearly sympathetic to the thrust of the international space and Taiwan identity goals of the DPP, frankly warned that the referendum battle was counter productive to Taiwan's international position, and especially its relations with the United States.[MT: Note two things: first, Taiwan needs to find a way to fix this problem pronto; and second, all of the discussants and pro-Taiwan types are conservatives or Establishment scholars. There is no Dem China policy, and there is no progressive discussion of Taiwan. Start talking, readers: what can Taiwan do to fix this mess with the US? ]

All discussants agreed that the Bush Administration has missed chances to actively sponsor Taiwanese international memberships in ways defined as acceptable to the PRC.
A current example...China's notification to the ICAO of two new air routes which just happen to go down the center of the Straits and which could have the effect of curtailing Taiwanese defense interests (and therefore US interests).

Despite having two major international airlines, Taiwan has not been supported for ICAO membership by the US, it was noted.

++++++++++++++++++

UPDATE: ESWN has a link and translation to a blog in Chinese about the Heritage Meeting. Note how the events emphasized in the blog in Chinese are completely meaningless in the meeting account given by Nelson.

[Taiwan] [KMT] [DPP] [China] [Kitty Hawk] [US]