Two on the arms sales

A woman catches some Zs at the train station, putting her fan over her face.

Longtime US gov't Taiwan expert Shirley Kan wrote in the recent Global Taiwan Institute Brief on the US arms sales. The whole piece is good, but I thought this was interesting....

The State Department did not brief or notify Congress of the pending arms sales until late June. On June 15, Chairman Ed Royce of the House Foreign Affairs Committee expressed concern about successive administrations’ delays in arms sales notifications for Taiwan, which have needlessly dragged out the arms sales process. He hoped to see regular notifications in the future. On June 23, Senators Benjamin Cardin, John McCain, James Inhofe, Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio, Edward Markey, John Cornyn, and Ron Wyden sent a bipartisan letter to President Trump, urging his administration to send pending notifications immediately. They also alluded to the lack of consultations with Congress on arms sales to Taiwan, concluding that they “look forward” to discussions on Taiwan’s defense needs.

She warns...

In addition to ending the distortion of “packages,” the administration looks to replace Obama holdovers with Trump’s own personnel in the Defense and State Departments, including at the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). Positions also could change, such as separating the portfolio on Taiwan from that on China.

By "distortion of packages" she refers to the effect of lumping sales of disparate systems into one big package, which highly politicizes what otherwise might be routine follow-on and upgrade sales. If each weapons system were sold separately at different times, when China complained, then the US could point and laugh: "No, seriously, you are whining about the sale of 48 anti-aircraft missiles?" or "How on earth could spare parts trigger you, Beijing?"

But when things are a gazillion dollar "package" it gives Chinese complaints a certain plausibility and makes lawmakers and the various government departments that much more hesitant to make the sale. Note that the Obama Administration refused to approve the deal, to stay on China's good side. It might have been more willing to if the package had been sold in small chunks that would cause less political friction with Beijing.

J Michael Cole writes in Taiwan Sentinel on the arms package. After noting that there is little chance of catching up to China, he observes:

Nevertheless, from a qualitative perspective the latest package contains some interesting elements which suggest greater willingness on Washington’s part to sell weapon systems to Taiwan that are not purely defensive in nature, a limitation that has long guided arms transfers to the island-nation. Some of the articles reflect a shift in Taiwan’s defense posture from static defense toward counterforce — the ability to strike targets in China or before they cross the median line in the Taiwan Strait. Three systems — the MK 48 Mod 6AT heavyweight torpedoes, AGM-88B HARMs and AGM-154C JSOW air-to-ground missiles — fall in this category and will complement indigenous weapons currently deployed by Taiwan’s Navy and Air Force.

Hopefully the flow of arms will become a regular and low-key affair.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Bader and Steinberg Journey to Beijing

Last week Obama Administration officials Jim Steinberg and Jeff Bader visited Beijing to discuss Czechoslovakia Taiwan with Berlin Beijing. The US state department said....

Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, along with the Senior Director for Asian Affairs Jeff Bader, are now in Tokyo for meetings with senior officials of the Japanese Government. In Beijing, they had talks with senior PRC officials, including Foreign Minister Yang and State Councilor Dai. The U.S. and PRC agreed on the high importance each attaches to the relationships and their commitment to building a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship. The two sides engaged in an in-depth exchange of views on issues of mutual concern, and they look forward to working together constructively to address these issues. In particular, the U.S. raised concern over Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs, economic, trade and market access issues, and climate change.

The U.S. responded to PRC’s concerns over Taiwan by reiterating that it has followed a consistent approach, pursued by both administrations of both political parties on a one-China policy, adherence to the three joint communiqués in the Taiwan Relations Act, and expectations of a peaceful resolution of the differences across the strait.

Mr. Steinberg and Bader indicated a willingness to try to work together with China to bridge differences and deepen cooperation on areas of common interest.

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

QUESTION: Can we follow up on (inaudible). Follow-up on Steinberg’s – Jim Steinberg’s trip to China, you mentioned that there were concerns raised about Iran, North Korea, and climate change. Did you get the sense that there was any forward movement on any of those issues from the Chinese side?

MR. CROWLEY: As we’ve said before, we came into this conversation with different – maybe a shared overall goal. I don’t think an arms race in the Middle East is in anyone’s interest. We do come at it from different vantage points regarding the utility of sanctions, and this is a conversation that we will continue to have with China in the weeks ahead.

QUESTION: Also on China, they announced a military budget which is a bit less than in previous years. Does this respond to U.S. concerns at all? Does this meet the U.S. concerns about a lack of transparency? Is there any reaction to --

MR. CROWLEY: I haven’t – I’ll probably defer to my colleagues over at the Pentagon. It is an issue that we have raised in the past, but I’ll defer to them to characterize it.

QUESTION: On the same visit with Mr. Steinberg, did the Chinese raise any concerns about the recent visit of the Dalai Lama to the White House?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not know. It would not surprise me.

QUESTION: But you don’t know that it came up?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know.

Foreign Policy, which seems to be improving week by week, had a good blogpost up at The Cable which cited the usual suspects at CSIS, Bonnie Glaser and Charles Freeman. It noted:

When top Obama administration officials went to Beijing last week, they had a broad agenda for discussion, including Iran, climate change, and North Korea. What did the Chinese want to talk about? Taiwan, Taiwan, and Taiwan.

Several China experts close to both sets of officials said that Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and National Security Council Senior Director Jeffrey Bader went to China with the understanding that they would have substantive discussions on some key issues of U.S. interest, but the Chinese side used the opportunity to try to bargain for an end to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, something Beijing has wanted for decades and now feels bold enough to demand.

"It was all about Taiwan," said Bonnie Glaser, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), "The message that the Chinese are giving us is ‘We've had enough; we're fed up. We've been living with this issue of U.S. arms sales for too long and it's time to solve it.'"

The Obama team has been noticing increased confidence on the Chinese side when dealing with the United States, and some officials see that as partly a result of the rise of hard-liners within the Chinese system who advocate a tougher stance toward Washington.

The Nelson Report, the Washington insider report, said of the visit:

"Chinese officials continue to present a skewed version of the Steinberg/Bader visit last week...they continue to encourage the blogosphere to paint the pair as coming to kow-tow, even to apologize for Obama's recent decisions on Taiwan arms and receiving the Dalai Lama.

The latest jab is to imply that Bader and Steinberg tried to "put the blame on Congress" for the decisions...thus denying the fundamental foreign policy and "China management" issues involved."

In the last sentence, Nelson refers to a China Daily report that had Bader and Steinberg blaming Congress and saying that the whole thing was out of their hands. Perhaps it is true, but it is just as likely to be disinformation aimed at Beijing's own domestic audience....

Just another week in China's relations with the world: a Uighur exile was jailed in Sweden for spying for China, downstream from China's dams other countries are complaining about reduced water supplies, and China is pretending to its own people that the US is kowtowing. This Foreign Policy piece argued that China's response to the arms sales to Taiwan and Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama is confused, and in part is driven by its vibrant and highly nationalist online community -- Beijing has been stoking that nationalism for years, so it shouldn't be surprised that it is now becoming irascible and difficult to control.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Friday Night Lites

Ralph Cossa of CSIS, who has been a harsh critic of the DPP for "provoking" China, has suddenly noticed that the real problem is Chinese belligerence and intransigence in a recent PACNET piece:

What Beijing needs to understand is that arms sales are more than just the fulfillment of the US moral and legal commitment to help Taiwan defend itself. In the final analysis, these sales are driven by Taiwan's perceived defensive needs in the face of a relentless expansion of Chinese military capabilities across the Strait. The best way to get Taiwan to request less would be for China to significantly reduce the threat Taipei currently faces).

Arms sales to Taiwan are a clear demonstration of Washington's commitment to peace and stability in Asia that send a clear signal to allies and potential adversaries alike that the US is determined to be an Asia-Pacific power. A refusal to sell much-needed arms to Taiwan would raise serious doubts about the credibility of the US defense commitment to its other allies. It could also compel Taiwan to turn to
nuclear weapons as a last resort, an outcome that China, least of all, should want to see.

It's highly unlikely that Taipei would begin construction of a nuclear capability, especially with a party more or less allied to Beijing running the government. But that kind of rhetoric shows the concern and puzzlement among US commentators over Beijing's behavior, evidenced also in the Bush piece discussed below this post. Is there a re-assessment going on in the US foreign policy community? Let's hope so.....

The NYTimes also editorialized on The Challenge of China...

The sales could not have been a surprise to China’s leadership. Mr. Obama told President Hu Jintao of his intentions at their summit in November in Beijing. The arms were part of a package approved by former President George W. Bush, and Mr. Obama left out the most controversial items: F-16 jets and diesel submarines.

Rather than encouraging Taiwan’s independence, as Beijing claims, the arms sales will give Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou, the confidence to continue his efforts to improve relations with the mainland. It is absurd for China to think that any Taiwanese leader would not want to bolster his country’s defenses when Beijing is modernizing its arsenal and stationing more than 1,000 missiles across the Taiwan Strait.

Beijing’s threat to punish American companies is a dangerous game, especially at a time when criticism is rampant — around the world and on Capitol Hill — about China’s unfair trade practices.

Both Cossa and the NYTimes pointed out that Obama told the Chinese months ago this sale would go forward. The noise that Beijing is making is just a game their playing...

...one thing this military build-up during the China-friendly Ma Administration has done is made it extremely difficult for critics of the DPP to reasonably claim that it is "provoking" China. Beijing has made it quite clear that the military build up will go on irrespective of who is in power -- meaning that it is now crystal clear the problem is Beijing.

In other news, Taiwan's share of imports into China has fallen...

Though Taiwan remained China's third largest source of imports in 2009, its share declined as Chinese purchases of Taiwanese goods contracted dramatically, the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) reported Saturday.

The MOEA, citing data from Chinese customs, said that Taiwanese products accounted for 8.5 percent of Chinese imports in 2009, down from 9.1 percent in 2008.

Japan remained China's top source of imports with a 13 percent share in 2009, slightly down from 13.3 percent in 2008, while South Korea was second with a market share of 10.2 percent, up from the 9.9 percent of the previous year.

China's imports from Taiwan recorded the largest annual contraction of China's top three suppliers, falling 17.1 percent from a year earlier.

The solution, according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs? You know what it must be: ECFA.
_______
Daily Links:

• Thanks to the reader who left this list of what to read about Taiwan politics from Foreign Affairs. Speaking of such lists, Paul Katz has a great one on religion and Chinese modernity at The China Beat.
• Jerome K on bias in the Diane Lee, Ma, and Chen cases.
• Neil Wade with some lovely random Taiwan images.
• Despite massive layoffs of Filipino workers in Taiwan, remittances actually grew during the recession.
• Taroko indigenous people vs giant cement company: Wild at Heart has the report.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Strong Richard Bush Piece in LATimes

First, huge shift in the government today as NSC head Su Chi, who had become deeply unpopular both within the KMT and in Washington, has stepped down. J Michael at Far Eastern Sweet Potato has a long and useful analysis of it you should be reading.

Richard Bush, the longtime US government Taiwan expert, once again hits some high notes in describing the US-Taiwan-China triangle.... the title, which appears to assign blame for the problems to Taiwan, is probably not Bush's... but note that summary which correctly assigns the blame for the current spate of problems to China.

Taiwan comes between the U.S. and China again
Washington's decision to OK a $6-billion arms deal has upset Beijing. But Chinese policies are mostly to blame for the tension.

The meat, with my emphasis:

Before we panic over the high-pitched Chinese reaction, it is worth remembering the reasons for the Obama administration's decision. What drives the U.S. defense support of Taiwan, including arms sales, is how the island's civilian and military leaders assess their security needs. That assessment, in turn, is shaped by China's military buildup as it affects Taiwan. In fact, that buildup has continued even though the threat that China has perceived from Taiwan has receded since Ma Ying-jeou became the island's president in May 2008.

So the logic behind the sale is simple: China has increased the island's vulnerability even when it did not need to do so; at the request of Taiwan, the Obama administration seeks to reduce the island's insecurity.

Some context is in order. Since the mid-1990s, relations across the Taiwan Strait deteriorated as each side feared that the other was preparing to challenge its fundamental interests. China feared that Taiwan's former leaders would go for full, legal independence. Taipei feared that Beijing would use its growing power to subordinate Taiwan. Each sought to counter the perceived plans of the other, which only intensified the mutual suspicion. As this vicious circle widened, Washington worried about the danger of a clash.

Tensions have declined since Ma has chosen to address Taiwan's China challenge through engagement, and thereby improved China's strategic position. Oddly, the People's Liberation Army continues to procure and deploy equipment that puts Taiwan at risk. According to the annual Pentagon report on China's military power, Beijing each year probably adds 100 short- and medium-range missiles, which target Taiwan.

Why China has not adjusted to the new, positive reality is puzzling. Is it because of rigid procurement schedules? Is it because civilian leaders cannot impose a change even when it makes policy sense? Or is it because China wishes to create the capacity to coerce and intimidate Taiwan? The answer is not clear.

I think the paragraph on context rather misstates the "deteriorating relations" problem since the 1990s; there was never any question that Lee Teng-hui or Chen Shui-bian would go for full legal independence, as China well knew. China was merely using that "fear" (and what does Beijing have to fear from a non-territory becoming a formal state? Nothing at all) as a pretext to bluster and threaten.

The answer to the questions in that last paragraph, as I've stated before, are quite clear, actually. The military build up continues not only because China wants that capacity to bully Taiwan into submission, but also because of its effect on US policymakers -- as China's military build up grows, more and more US foreign policy thinkers move toward the position that Taiwan must be quietly sold out.

The build up also continues apace because as the recent comments from PLA hardliners suggests, China is preparing for a war in the region. From this writer's perspective, things are looking more and more like we will be facing another round of sprawling hegemonic wars. Although it is tempting to reach for the Nazi analogy when looking at the combination of victim consciousness, superiority complex, concentration camps, one-party rule, expansionism, land power strategic thinking, and so on, I believe a better historical analogy for China struggling to move from Empire to State is 17th century France.... and look how that ended in the guillotine and the Napoleonic Wars....

It should also be noted that the "weapons sale" is part of a package long predating the Obama Administration, and does not contain the much-needed F-16s. Perhaps Washington is retaining its decision on those depending on how China behaves after this sale of secondary items.

Consider the commentary on China being able to punish Taiwan, but instead foregoing that to punish the US-Taiwan relationship, as read.

Bush's concluding paragraph is, for a man given to reserve and subtlety in his public comments, a stinging critique:

Chinese critics of U.S. arms sales tend to assume that Washington is using arms to block China's unification with Taiwan. Nothing could be further from the truth. U.S. support for Taiwan's defense is and should be a function of the island's sense of insecurity, which in turn is the result of China's policies. Chinese critics should examine how their government's own actions have fostered the very outcome they oppose.

Bingo. As China's military builds, so does support for Taiwan independence in Taiwan. What's great about this piece is that it forthrightly identifies the problem as China, something that US commentators seldom do when discussing Taiwan, though they are happy to blame China for its expansionist nonsense elsewhere in Asia.

My friend Tom Patterson and I were discussing the piece (linked below) on Beijing's possible cancellation of the Nimitz visit to Hong Kong. After I suggested that allowing the visit might well be a signal to the regime's critics in the PLA who advocate tough anti-US policies, Tom wrote:

"About whether the anger is pro-forma or not, it did cross my mind that the words may sound a little more harsh, but that those at the top may have no intention of acting seriously unless Washington makes a much stronger commitment. The pieces are all there for those who care to look for them.

Consider a Reuters piece from today or yesterday that noted that voices from the military (three top generals) once again trying to pressure the CCP leadership for a stronger response. They hope that China's military expenditures will increase this year, want new troop deployments to areas near Taiwan, and think that China should respond through a mega-stupid move of selling US treasuries.

The expenditures might rise anyways, but the leadership wouldn't dare touch the treasuries now, and they would know that redeployment of troops to the Taiwan area would shock Taiwanese right in the middle of the ECFA negotiations.

So I am increasingly feeling that media outlets, and many journalists, indeed DONT understand China, but not for the reasons that the 50-cent crowd claims. The Chinese anger is not only a policy choice. The leadership may think it is necessary to save their own heads and be simultaneously unable to admit this.

The media fails to consider the balancing act that arms sales and Dalai Lama visits force the leadership to undertake. While Hu and Wen are solidly entrenched at the head of the party right now, things like ethnic riots, slowing exports, arms sales to Taiwan, etc, all invite internal criticism of their efforts. If China doesn't react with "anger", Hu, Wen and their allies lose credibility. Because the system doesn't have an in-built peaceful method of factional change, those on the top have to constantly show that they are pushing the hardest to defend China's interests. And since the nationalist population increasingly believes that China doesn't have to be flexible in its dealings with other countries, the leadership has to push harder. Can this possibly end well? :-(

Hu and Wen might not have to worry about being thrown out of power. But Xi and Li might. My former Chinese teacher, who is a follower of Chinese politics, told me once that he was concerned about the prospects of the next generation. Hu had the advantage of being hand-picked by Deng to succeed Jiang. Wen was already widely known as a good official at the time of his appointment. Yet my teacher noted that Xi was not chosen by one of the revolutionary luminaries. And neither Xi nor Li have records that have made them really stand out across the country in the past. Xi also appears to be gaffe prone. He is the one who said in Mexico, "China does not export revolution, hunger, poverty, nor does China cause you any headaches. Just what else do you want?" and whose staff forgot about protocol when meeting the Japanese emperor and had to request that the Japanese PM step in to arrange a rush visit. So if the current leadership is perceived as being too soft on any issue, opponents might choose to take it out on less experienced successors down the road.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if a media outlet said, just once: 'The Obama administration has notified Congress of a major arms sale to Taiwan, invoking an angry reaction from China's leadership, which often uses its outbursts to placate the increasingly nationalistic views of the party apparatus and the public. Such weapons sales are unpopular in China, where the US' commitments for maintaining Taiwan's self-defense capability under the Taiwan Relations Act are perceived as helping to maintain the de-facto independence that the island has enjoyed for decades.'"

As Tom asked: Can this possibly end well?

I'm off to play Europa Universalis III.....
______
Daily Links:

• Beijing to allow US carrier Nimitz to visit Hong Kong despite arms sales and Dalai Lama visit. Is reading this in the international context wrong? Is the CCP trying to signal its own PLA hotheads that provoking a war with the US is a really stupid idea?
• Michael Klein's excellent pics of our fun in Thailand, with links to other days of the trip.
• Barking Deer with pics and commentary: is the Alishan Road Open?
• Wang Chien-ming may move to the Washington Nationals.
• Commentator argues that Taiwan's defense needs should be linked to Chinese cooperation on Iran. Just another echo in the vast abyss of the American obsession with the Middle East, the area of yesterday, that is impairing its position in Asia, the place of tomorrow.
• Gut-wrenching: Onboard security cams show bus accident in Changhua last year involving 13 vehicles and 4 deaths.
  

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Trifecta of the Terrible

Let's start with the just plain silly: China continues to make noise about the US arms sales. Yesterday at the Munich Security Conference, Chinese FM Yang complains that US arms sales to Taiwan are against international law, and says that Chinese news is more reliable than western news. Yang clearly has a promising second career in comedy.... For bonus reliability of Chinese media hilarity, don't miss China Daily's propaganda piece on Taiwan's people protesting against the arms sales. What, you didn't see any demonstrations? That proves your mind has been controlled by the horribly biased western media.

Speaking of comedy emanating from Beijing, our first entry in the trifecta of terrible is The Berkshire Encyclopedia of China has an absolutely hilarious entry on Cross-Strait relations that was written in China, so you know it is hopelessly biased. Enjoy its false claims of economic suffering under Chen "the radical" and its apparent omission of Chinese threats, missile launches, military build up, etc. The problem with an entry this bad is that it makes one suspicious of the competence of the other entries. I'd give this highly political load of crap a wide berth. I've written them about it; you should too.

Bazillions of pixels have been slain in the furious commentating on the US decision to sell arms to Taiwan -- arms that are nearly a decade in coming and will have very little effect on the military situation. The cacophony of commentary is a tribute to Beijing's ability to play US commentators. For example:

Leslie Gelb, former official and longtime national security policy commentator, lobbed Obama's Dangerous Game with China into The Daily Beast. Gelb's major points are contained in this paragraph:

The cage rattling won't come close to blows, but it will unsettle and unnerve international affairs, and ignite a new and damaging testing of great power wills. Count on this tug of war to block mutual cooperation on stifling the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea and to further sour ongoing trade and investment disputes and charges of Chinese Internet censorship, and whatever else turns up. Most worrisome, it’s not at all clear that Chinese and American leaders have thought strategically about their next moves and how to keep the situation within bounds.

Dr. Gelb has catastrophically misunderstood the game. The point of China's "anger" -- a policy choice, not a visceral response -- is to strain relations between Taipei and Washington. Indeed, as I have noted, several commentators hastened to reassure that Beijing-Taipei relations would not be affected (example). As I have always noted, China could punish Taiwan, but never does, because that would not affect the one relationship it really wants to alter. Gelb falls for this completely. He also falls for the classic "now is not the time" fallacy: now is not the time to increase tension with Beijing because we are engaged in _____. Since we are always engaged in something sensitive with China, it follows that it is never the time to push back against Chinese bullying. I'd write more, but my friend Tom has an awesome response to Gelb there, that points out all this, and more, including Gelb's total misunderstanding of the US position on Taiwan.

The ominous thing about Gelb's piece is that it fits neatly into the flow of calls for abandoning Taiwan emanating from the Council on Foreign Relations and other US Establishment think tanks. This includes Gilley's awful piece in Foreign Affairs on Finlandizing Taiwan, which I looked at below, as well as this recent and very ugly piece by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace visiting scholar David Rothkopf: Can the US continue to afford supporting Taiwan?

I don't think there is any need to go into detail on the manifold problems of the Rothkopf piece, but the oddity of the strategic thinking expounded by the Dump Taiwan crowd is worth exploring. This crowd has on the whole evinced no great reluctance to waste billions on our criminally stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter being where good American boys are dying to make Central Asia safe for Chinese expansion. The CFR has issued several pieces in support of continued involvement in Afghanistan, but its house organ, Foreign Affairs, hosted Gilley's piece on Finlandizing Taiwan. In fairness Rothkopf says the real goal of US policy in Central Asia should be Pakistan, not Afghanistan, but that boggles the imagination: essentially the Dump Taiwan team consists of Serious Thinkers who want to dump Taiwan -- a key producer of technology products in the most important region in the world for the foreseeable future -- in order to keep Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Right. How's that again?

More on Arms Sales
Taipei Times: China Factor in Arms Sales
CNN cites Chinese scholar in Canada who has never visited Taiwan. Awful dreck.
AFP notes that the arms sale is aimed at reassuring countries around China.
AP echoes claims that arms sale will not hurt Beijing-Taipei relations.
VOA says effect of Chinese sanctions would be limited.
CSM on the effect on US-China military cooperation.
FT editorial says China overplays its hand.
China has also complained about EU chopper sales to Taiwan, but seems to be taking a softer line with the EU because Beijing hopes the arms embargo will be lifted. UPDATE: This is wrong, no protest from Beijing on this, says Eurocopter.
WSJ says arms sales help cross strait relations
_________
Daily Links:

• Rowan Callick with an excellent piece on Taipei. Someday the world will discover that Taiwan does not equal Taipei. Come to Taichung, Rowan, I'll take you biking.
  
• Chinese hackers also attack other US firms, this time the one involved in the Green Dam case.
• 10,000 fraud calls a day to local cell phones.
  
• Ma interviewed by former VP Annette Lu.
• Historic cart track restored in Hsinchu.
• Adm Keating interviewed in the Honolulu paper on Taiwan-China-US triangle.
• Say it ain't so! Taiwan calls foul over unfair flight arrangements. What did you guys expect?
• Fabulous piece on Jack London and the Yellow Peril in his fiction and non-fiction at JapanFocus.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Rounding up ECFA (=Exploiting China to Forego Annihilation)

Today, in our electricity bill, the government was kind enough to include this pamphlet exhorting us to support ECFA. Note the use of the HSR to invoke visions of modernity and progress. Sorry, DPPers, but you can't complain -- remember when you hung those UN for Taiwan banners on government buildings? The Ma government is trying harder to persuade the public that its suicide pact ECFA will be good for the island.

The 'sign or die' theme that dominates the government's approach to ECFA was on display in this recent piece from the CNA on the island's petroleum products industry and ECFA, highlighting an interview with the head of the island's synthetic resins industry....

In a move to support a proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, Hong said that if Taiwan's petrochemical industry does not receive zero-tariff treatment under the trade pact,it will not be able to survive.

One year later, after petrochemicals were included on the ECFA early harvest list, Hong still has concerns about the progress of signing the trade deal.

"If Korea and Japan -- Taiwan's two biggest competitors -- sign free trade agreements with China ahead of us, China will no longer need to place their orders in Taiwan, so there will be no room for us to survive," Hong said in a recent interview.

At present, Taiwan's petrochemical exports to China are subject to a 6.5 percent import duty -- already higher than the 5.5 percent import duty for Korea and Japan. However, the latter two will be granted zero-duty treatment from 2012.

"If we cannot grab the moment to secure the market, we are sending ourselves to the mortuary," said Hong.

Apocalyptic language notwithstanding, further down it is noted:

Hong, who has also served as president of the Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp., pointed out that while China's imports of petrochemicals were up to about 25 million tons a year, the country was also developing its own petrochemical industry to meet its growing domestic demand.

China's demand will remain strong in the next few years, said Hong, explaining that the per capita consumption of plastic materials in the country is only a few kilograms but is expected to grow to about 20 kg in the future, compared to Taiwan's per capita consumption of around 100 kg.

However, he predicted that China will slowly reduce its dependency on imports. "We don't have much time left," Hong said.

In other words, Hong argues that we should sign the ECFA immediately to save an industry which China is going to largely take over in any case -- the Taiwan version of trading permanent gains for China for temporary concessions to Taiwan. It's easy to see where this will go -- first the zero tariffs, then those won't be enough, and demands for even more subsidies will follow.

Meanwhile pressure from Beijing is growing to open the market to Chinese agricultural goods, move that would devastate local agriculture.

Last week, a high-level meeting started between Taiwan and China to hold talks on a proposed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). The Library Times informed that China asked the island to open its market to the banned agriculture items in these talks.

While talking to reports, Vice chairman of the agriculture council Hu Hsing-hua talked about the ECFA and the potential effect on Taiwan’s farmers.

Hu said, “This is in fact a hypothetical subject.”

Further, Hu said, “ECFA does not take Taiwan's farmers into account. We must first see the benefit for the farmers before we discuss the subject. Whether or not to proceed also must be decided by the people. We also hope the people can oversee the agricultural imports together.”

There are also concerns that China will flood the market with its agricultural goods via a third country. Smuggling of agricultural products is already underway -- the island has been dependent on garlic imports from China for years. The Liberty Times reported the other day that KMT think tanks are starting to float trial balloons for the lifting of the ban on agricultural products -- remember too that the first trial balloons for the importation of Chinese labor date back two decades. It's all coming down the pike, probably in Ma's second administration.

Pan-Green Academics warn on signing ECFA, as they have for the last two years....

At a forum hosted by the group Taiwan Advocates yesterday, Taiwan Thinktank chairman Chen Po-chih (陳博志) said the director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, Wang Yi (王毅), had stated that after Taiwan signs an ECFA with Beijing, there would be few cross-strait economic issues left for both sides discuss, so dialogue on political issue would be unavoidable.

Soochow University political science professor Luo Chih-cheng (羅致政) said the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government has expressed its hope to sign an ECFA this May. If that happens, Luo said, Taipei and Beijing would start talk on political issues from the middle of this year, and that political dialogue would possibly include signing a peace treaty with Beijing.

Luo said that a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) victory in the 2012 presidential election might be too late if President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) signs a ­political treaty with China during his term.

2011 is the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the ROC.

...and as far as China's promises are concerned, there are quite a few complaints that China is not keep its side of bargains (like here, for example).

Finally, it should be noted that the recent arms sale to Taiwan, the subject of several awful commentaries in the US media recently, has had no effect on ECFA, according to Beijing.

The second round of negotiations will be delayed until late February or early March as Beijing has said there is "no way" to send negotiators to the island earlier, the Taipei-based China Times newspaper reported on Thursday.

Taiwan's China policymaking body confirmed the estimated dates but said they did not represent a delay in talks.

Taiwan's acceptance of a $6.4 billion package of U.S. weapons has had "no effect" on trade talks despite Beijing's outrage toward Washington, said a media relations officer at Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Office, a government body.

But look at that opening sentence of the article, which appears purposefully written to convey the idea that the arms sale and ECFA postponement are related : "China has postponed a second round of free trade talks with Taiwan until after the Lunar New Year holiday amid US plans of arms sales."

This article points to a central truth about the arms sale complaints of China: if China really wanted to stop Taiwan from purchasing weapons from the US, all it has to do is punish Taiwan. But it never punishes Taiwan though it has myriad ways of doing so; instead, it always attempts to transfer the costs back to the US-Taiwan relationship by hacking on the US. The goal, of course, is to chip away at US support for Taiwan. This was difficult even a decade ago, but now China's rise has spawned a whole class of commentators who argue that the US should sell out the island in order to reap the big bucks from China, making China's job that much easier -- surely the ultimate realization of the US habit of making permanent concessions to China for temporary gains....

UPDATE: A friend notes in the comments that FCC already has two petrochemical plants in China.
___
Daily Links:

• Ben Goren with excellent piece on government's approach to ECFA.
• The Jamestown China Brief has several strong articles on China.
• Philip Bowring with another good one in the NYTimes on US-China confrontation.
• Consumer prices on the rise here.
• Taipei Times editorial argues ECFA is driving Taiwan's insane housing prices.
• SHOCKER: Taiwan whisky beats Scottish whiskys in blind taste test.
  

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

What the Health Care Debacle Teaches About the future of US-Taiwan Relations

Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."

Glenn Greenwald, one of America's most insightful bloggers, nails progressives, Dems, the corporate world, and Obama in a brilliant post on Obama's duplicity in the health care debacle: the truth is that Obama never intended to get a public option passed:

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

The entire piece is well worth reading, as is most anything Greenwald writes: the Lieberman Criticism, the attacks on the Blue Dogs, it was all KMT-style political theatre. What this all means for Taiwan should become clear as we explore the announcement of weapons sales to Taiwan.....

The New York Times reported on Tuesday the 15th that the Obama Administration was going to sell weapons to Taiwan....

The Obama administration will proceed with arms sales to Taiwan despite recent protests by China, an American official said Tuesday.

The official, Raymond Burghardt, is chairman of the American Institute in Taipei, the de facto United States Embassy in Taiwan.

Speaking from Hawaii, where he lives, he said that sales of arms to Taiwan were consistent with what White House officials have been saying was President Obama’s policy. “No one should be surprised when we move forward with them,” he said.

Mr. Burghardt declined to say exactly when Mr. Obama would notify Congress of an arms sale. The American relationship with Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province, is one of the most delicate diplomatic issues between Beijing and Washington. The United States takes no position on the sovereignty of Taiwan, but acknowledges that Beijing claims that there is only one China.

(As an aside, could there be a luckier man than Burghardt, living in Hawaii but making frequent trips to Taiwan? I want that job!). The arms package (1) doesn't include the F-16, and (2) the Obama Administration declined to say exactly when it would go through. So here we have a package whose arrival is some time in the distant future, and which doesn't include the one thing that is really needed. Yes, we have a pattern here. J Michael Cole of the Taipei Times followed up with one of his patented penetrating analyses, pointing out that the arms package could be an expensive illusion:

The “new” arms package recently touted by US officials has yet to be confirmed by US President Barack Obama. Nevertheless, supporters of Taiwan are already hailing the news as a great victory, of Obama “thumbing his nose at the Chinese,” as Foreign Policy recently put it.

There are signs, however, that there is less to the news than meets the eye.

From what has been made public, the Obama administration could release PAC-3 interceptor missiles, UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, as well as an operations deal for the “Po Sheng,” or Broad Victory, command and control program and design work on diesel-electric submarines.

Not only are the 66 F-16C/D fighter aircraft that Taiwan has sought for years missing from the list, however, there is also nothing new in the “new” arms package proposed by the administration.

“The real question,” Wendell Minnick, Asia Bureau Chief at Defense News, told the Taipei Times on Sunday, “is what is ‘new’ in the arms pipe that hasn’t been in there since 2001. And there is nothing, which is ominous.”

All these items were approved by former US president George W. Bush in 2001. Also problematic is the fact that the design work on the submarines would be both costly and may not even result in actual subs. Even if it did, it would only be many years from now and make an insignificant contribution to Taiwan’s current and mid-term defense requirements.

Let's see -- Ma and the KMT have been making noises about soft power, and about waiting patiently for weapons -- it's not unreasonable if they take years, says Ma. The KMT doesn't want weapons, and what this whole three year long three-card monte game with she-will-sell-weapons, she-won't-sell-weapons appears to mean is that the Administration does not plan to help Taiwan upgrade by selling it new weapons, either. They'll probably keep dangling the F-16s in front of us like a salty snack held just above the nose of a Golden Retriever. In the Cole piece long-time Taiwan watcher John Tkacik peers through the magician's stagecraft, echoing what I said the other day:

“I suspect that if Obama approves a new arms package, Ma’s government and the [Chinese Nationalist Party, KMT]-dominated Legislative Yuan will, once again, go out of its way to temporize, shilly-shally and complain about the costs, utility, and political tensions with China of the sales — and use those factors as excuses to stall procurements. That way, Obama can say ‘it’s Taiwan’s fault’ and [President] Ma [Ying-jeou (馬英九)] will say ‘it’s the Americans’ fault.”

Ta-da! The Obama Administration fufills its Pledge to sell weapons to Taiwan. It's just like Obama's health care reform (and it pleases the same consituency): you can have what you already would have had, if we hadn't taken any further action at all. What this means for Taiwan's future, with the corporate side eager for "cooperation" with China, isn't good.
________________
Daily Links

• Marketplace with my friend Mark Forman about Taiwan, IT, and branding.
• Spencer with excellent piece on traffic cams in Taiwan, with comparisons to US traffic cams, and links to Google Maps.
• This is what Afghanistan is really about: gas pipelines.
• Ma again pushes the line: if we move closer to China, we will become more globalized. In the KMT view, sinicization = globalization.
• AFP once again completely fails to get Taiwan correct. The poll asks: Do you think that cross-Strait political negotiations should be held to achieve mutual recognition during the tenure of President Ma Ying-jeou? Yes 57% Ask yourself if this is equivalent to AFP's report that Fifty-seven percent said Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou should negotiate with Beijing to prevent war and secure peace . Really, I have no idea why they bother to spend money to keep people out here. They could source from Xinhua with exactly the same effect. DPP poll on same topic discussed at Taiwan News. Have fun with them both.
  

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

House Members Introduce Bill on Arms Sales to Taiwan

FAPA passed this around:

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

SENIOR HOUSE MEMBERS INTRODUCE LEGISLATION RE. ARMS SALES FOR TAIWAN - Resolution Seeks to Reinvigorate Congressional Oversight on Defense Consultation

(Washington) – In an attempt to pressure the Obama administration to expedite a decision on F-16C/Ds sale and notify Congress of the remainder of the defense services and articles for Taiwan that were approved by the Bush administration, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), along with Taiwan caucus co-chairs, Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), and Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA), Mike Ross (D-AK), Dan Burton (R-IN) and Walter Minnick (D-ID) introduced H.R. 4102 this afternoon, requiring the administration to provide detailed briefings to Congress on U.S. arms sale to Taiwan. The bill, if passed, would “mandate briefings no later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and at least annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall provide detailed briefings to Congress on (1) any discussions conducted between any executive branch agency and the Government of Taiwan; (2) any potential transfer of defense articles or defense services to the Government of Taiwan.”

FAPA President Bob Yang says, “The introduction of the resolution today is most timely as Taiwan supporters are disturbed by President Obama’s statements in China in regards to Taiwan. President Obama’s omission of the Taiwan Relations Act while stating that the U.S. respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity through the three joint communiqués is likely to embolden China to press even harder her spurious claim over Taiwan. Such statements seriously undermine U.S. legitimacy to continue providing defense articles and services to Taiwan as codified in the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8) and compromise the strategic interests of not only Taiwan but also of the U.S. in the region.”

Yang continues, “For the past few years, members of Congress have been expressing strong concern about the stalemate in U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Their repeated appeals to the administration went unheeded. Annual briefings, as mandated by this bill, will reassert Congress' prerogative to co-determine with the President the nature and the quantity of the defense articles and services for Taiwan, as stated in Section 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act.”

2009年11月18日

美資深眾議員提出對台軍售法案，重拾美國國會軍售諮商監督權


為了施壓歐巴馬政府儘快就出售台灣F-16一事作出決定，以及儘快通知美國國國會數項布希政府已通過的相關軍售，眾議院外交委員會副主席蘿斯列敦娜(Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL)與台灣連線三位共同主席柏克莉(Shelley Berkley, D-NV)、金格瑞(Phil Gingrey, R-GA)、迪亞斯巴拉特(Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-FL)，以及眾議員羅依斯(Ed Royce, R-CA)、羅斯(Mike Ross, D-AK)、柏頓(Dan Burton, R-IN)與明尼克(Walt Minnick, D-ID)，特於今日下午提出第4102號議案，要求行政部門向國會詳細報告對台軍售事宜。

此項法案如果正式通過，將要求美國國務卿與國防部長相磋商，在法案通過90天之內，以及往後每年向國會就台灣政府與行政部門之間的討論，以及未來可能的對台軍售進行詳細簡報。

FAPA會長楊英育表示：「這項法案在今天正式提出，是再適當也不過的時機，因為許多台灣支持者對歐巴馬總統在中國發表的聲明感到不安。歐巴馬總統在美中共同聲明中提及美國透過三項公報尊重中國的主權與領土完整，卻未提及台灣關係法，將有可能導致中國得寸進尺，強化中國擁有台灣主權的荒謬立場。這樣的聲明嚴重損及台灣關係法裡美國有權提供台灣防衛武器的正當性，更影響到台灣與美國在當地的戰略利益。蘿斯列敦娜議員今天提出的法案與與她去年第6646號議案相類似。我們尤其支持她今年這項法案中提到行政部門對台軍售的國會簡報必須年年實行。」

楊英育接著表示：「過去幾年來，部份國會議員多次強烈關切美國對台軍售一再遭到擱置。他們的關心與訴求很可惜的並未受到行政部門的採納。正因如此，今天這項法案裡特別制訂年度簡報的要求，這正是美國國會意欲重拾主導權，以符合台灣關係法第三條(b)項條文規定，由行政部門與國會共同決定對台軍售的質與量。」

*****

111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION

H. R. 4102

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

To require the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to provide detailed briefings to Congress on any recent discussions conducted between United States Government and the Government of Taiwan and any potential transfer of defense articles or
defense services to the Government of Taiwan, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:

(1) Relations between the United States and Taiwan are governed by the Taiwan Relations Act
(22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.; Public Law 96–8), three joint communiqués, and the Six Assurances.

(2) The Taiwan Relations Act has governed United States arms sales to Taiwan since 1979, when the United States extended diplomatic recognition to the People's Republic of China.

(3) The Taiwan Relations Act specifies that it is United States policy, among other things, to consider any nonpeaceful means to determine Taiwan's future ‘‘a threat'' to the peace and security of the Western Pacific and of ‘‘grave concern'' to the United States, ‘‘to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character'', and ‘‘to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion'' jeopardizing the security or social or economic system of Taiwan's people.

(4) Section 3(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act states that ‘‘the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability."

(5) Section 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act stipulates that both the President and the Congress
shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services ‘‘based solely'' upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan.

(6) Taiwan in March 2009 issued its first Quadrennial Defense Review, a robust, defense-oriented strategy that aims to shape the regional security environment and deter conflict while transforming the military into a leaner, more efficient fighting force with sustainable capabilities, thereby helping to demonstrate that Taiwan has the resolve and commitment to successfully strengthen its own defenses.

(7) According to the Congressional Research Service, the executive branch has yet to send any
arms transfer notifications to Congress for Taiwan during calendar year 2009, including notifications for Blackhawk helicopters, diesel submarine design, and additional Patriot PAC-3 systems, nor has it yet transferred the OSPREY class minehunter coastal ships ORIOLE (MHC-55) and FALCON (MHC-59), even though Congress authorized the sale of these ships in calendar 2008 in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–229).

(8) Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou has reiterated his administration's desire to acquire United States built F-16 C/Ds and other weapons on many public occasions, including in an April 22 address to the United States by teleconference to mark the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act and a statement issued during a May 26 transit stop in the United States on his way to Central America for a diplomatic visit.

(9) Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou also stated on October 2, 2009, that ‘‘Although there are
pragmatic improvements in cross-strait ties, this doesn't mean we can let our guard down."

(10) As highlighted in the March 2009 Department of Defense annual report to Congress on China's military, ‘‘China's armed forces are rapidly developing coercive capabilities. . . [that] could in the future be used to pressure Taiwan toward a settlement of the cross-Strait dispute on Beijing's terms while simultaneously attempting to deter, delay, or deny any possible U.S. support for the island in case of conflict."

SEC. 2. MANDATORY CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFINGS.

(a) BRIEFINGS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and at least annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall provide detailed briefings to Congress on—

(1) any discussions conducted between any executive branch agency and the Government of Taiwan during the covered period; and

(2) any potential transfer of defense articles or defense services to the Government of Taiwan.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) COVERED PERIOD.—The term ‘‘covered period'' means, with respect to—

(A) the initial briefing required under subsection (a), the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending on the date of such initial briefing; and

(B) subsequent briefings required under such subsection, the period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent briefing and ending on the date of any such subsequent briefing.

(2) EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY.—The term ‘‘executive branch agency'' has the meaning given the term ‘‘agency'' in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.

(3) DEFENSE ARTICLE.—The term ‘‘defense article'' has the meaning given the term in section 5 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794).

(4) DEFENSE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘defense service'' has the meaning given the term in section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794).　###

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Orion antisub aircraft to arrive -- 5 years from now

Via the Navy Times, Kyodo News reports on the deal for the US to sell 12 refurbished P-3C subhunters to Taiwan:

The U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin Corp. reached agreement this week on a $1.3 billion deal to refurbish a dozen antisubmarine aircraft for sale to Taiwan, the “last step” forward in a major arms deal stalled since 2007, according to a senior Taiwanese legislative aide familiar with the matter.

“The deal is now going very smoothly,” the aide told Kyodo News on condition of anonymity.

“This is the last step,” he said, referring to plans to ink a contract later this month on refurbishing 12 P3-C Orion aircraft that have already been cleared by the U.S. Congress for sale to Taiwan.

Long-awaited progress on the deal came as the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama said it would seek to boost defense ties with Taiwan, a sticking point in U.S. relations with China, which claims the self-ruled island as part of its territory.

These aircraft were originally part of the 2001 arms deal which the KMT stalled in the legislature for years, allowing US commentators to claim that Taiwan was not serious about its own defense. Delivery is not slated until 2013. These aircraft will perform the subhunting role nicely, but their presence means that Taiwan must have control of its own airspace, or these clunky, propeller driven aircraft, easy prey for modern fighters, will not be able to operate. Earth to Washington: sell us those 66 F-16s, please!

[Taiwan]

Obama Statement on Arms Sales

The Obama campaign, which along with the McCain campaign had been putting pressure on the Bush Administration to approve the arms sales to Taiwan, put out a statement on the issue. Pay attention to that last paragraph...

"Senator Obama welcomes the Bush Administration's decision to notify Congress concerning the package of weapons systems for Taiwan. This package represents an important response to Taiwan's defense needs. This action is fully consistent with U.S. obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act. The sale helps to contribute to Taiwan's defense and the maintenance of a healthy balance in the Taiwan Strait. Senator Obama looks forward to fully reviewing the notifications and the accompanying justification of the Department of Defense.

"Senator Obama strongly supports the reduction of tensions between China and Taiwan, and commends China's President Hu Jintao and Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou for their efforts in that regard. A strengthening of Taiwan's defenses will not undermine the process of reduction of tensions and can actually promote it.

"Senator Obama regrets that China has responded by suspending military-to-military exchanges with the U.S. and nonproliferation talks. These discussions are in the interest of both sides, and should be resumed," said Wendy Morigi, national security spokesperson.

Good thing our engagement partner understands our point of view and won't do anything unreasonable.... actually, this is normal behavior whenever the US sells weapons to Taiwan. It too shall pass...

UPDATE: Some things that wiser heads pointed out to me....both Ma and Hu are "President" as if suggesting they rule separate countries, and only the word "Taiwan" is used here to describe the ROC. Not bad, eh?

[Taiwan]

Bush Administration to Release $6.5B arms package

The Financial Times is among the many media sources reporting....

The Bush administration on Friday notified Congress of the proposed sale, which includes Patriot missiles, Apache helicopters, submarine-launched Harpoon missiles, Javelin anti-tank missiles and spare parts for F-16 fighter jets.

Taiwan will welcome the package following earlier signs that the US might not proceed with the sales. Admiral Timothy Keating, head of US Pacific Command, ignited controversy earlier this year by saying the US had frozen arms sales to Taiwan.

The move comes as relations between Taipei and Beijing continue to improve under since Ma Ying-jeou assumed office as the new Taiwanese president in May. But the package is significantly less than an earlier $12bn proposal, and does not include Blackhawk helicopters or money to study the possibility of acquiring diesel submarines.

This excellent news has been building for some time, with reports piling up during the last few days on the various Taiwan and China lists that at last something was going to go through. The FT story observes that the Bush Administration slimmed the package down to appease China, but left it large enough to please Taipei. Also, the submarines, which I have always considered a massive waste of money, are eliminated....

One former US official said the slimmer package adhered to the “Goldilocks theory” of being “not too hard, not too soft to try to preserve things with Beijing”. A senior US official said the White House believed it could proceed with the sales now because Washington had restored a “very solid, very productive and positive relationship” with Taipei.

“President Ma needs these sales to demonstrate that he is doing the right thing for his people. On the other hand, we did not want to put such a large package forward that it would disrupt the positive trends in cross-strait relations, so we made a calculation to reduce the size of the package.”

The official added that some of the weapons not included in the package could be considered at a later point. But he said the Bush administration had decided not to consider submarines, since none of the countries that build the diesel vessels were prepared to sell them to Taipei.

I would say that the relations between Taipei and Beijing are moving in a positive direction too -- the kind of forward motion that takes one right over the abyss before anyone realizes it....

There's been a lot of speculation in blogs and media that the US is pleasing China because it needs those dollars in China to bail out Wall Street. Recently, however, Chinese banks have received instructions not to lend to US banks. Suddenly, the Bush Administration decides to reverse course and sell weapons to Taiwan. 2 + 2 = ???

Both the Obama and the McCain campaigns had wanted the Bush Administration to do the right thing before the new administration takes office. However, the Bush Administration has still refused to sell Taiwan the F-16s we need....the article continues:

Michael Green, former senior Asia adviser to Mr Bush, welcomed the proposed sales, which he said would remove any doubt that the US was committed to the defence of Taiwan. But he said the decision to postpone consideration of submarines, and the unwillingness of the Bush administration to consider F-16 sales, would give the next administration a difficult starting hand in dealing with cross-strait relations.

The Bush administration has refused to accept a letter from Taiwan requesting permission to buy F-16s. Mr Green said accepting the letter “would have been a nice additional touch” to the package announced yesterday. Another former Bush administration official criticised the decision, however, saying US credibility had been reduced by refusing to sell some items that had been previously approved in principle.

Sources in Taiwan expressed relief that the overall decision had not been left to the next US administration.

The Bush Administration has left many problems for the next Administration to clean up, not the least of which is Taiwan policy.

MEDIA: In this article, The Formula describing China's claims on Taiwan is excellent, entirely free of historical error, and very clear...

Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, it claims the island as part of its territory and threatens to attack it should Taipei officially declare its independence.

I'd send Kathrin Hille a box of chocolates, but that's an ambiguous gift these days....

[Taiwan]

Nelson Report: Why Bush Adm has Frozen Arms & Other Stuff

A recent Nelson Report discusses why the Bush Administration is screwing Taiwan:

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

Taiwan arms...even though seven notifications are pending and had been expected to be submitted to Congress last week, sources say it may not happen, as White House officials take seriously a case against them made by a defense expert.

"Perspective" tonite comes from the conclusion of an influential study of Taiwan's defense needs by Naval War College analyst Bill Murray which helps explain what's happening...or, rather, not happening.

TAIWAN arms...a Loyal Reader asked last week what's up with notifications which faced a deadline for submission to Congress. Today, it's clear the deadlines have been missed, and pro-Taiwan folks are expressing outrage.

Heritages' John Tkacik tells Defense News he fears that Beijing will just "pocket" the Bush Administration non-decisions and that the next US Administration will be stuck with the ability to sell even less, regardless.

Maybe that's what will happen, say our defense experts...John is talking mainly politics, geopolitics here...but the internal debate on what Taiwan really needs, especially given China's current build-ups and power projection capability intentions...that may help explain the Bush decision to "decide" by not deciding.

Also remember, as Defense News notes, the Taiwan politicians are themselves to blame, in that they indulged in domestic gamesmanship for most of the Bush Administration, and "missed the window" which might...might have produced a favorable decision on some of the systems now stuck in limbo.

But the main reason? Our understanding is that a hard-nosed critique of the Taiwan arms situation by the Naval War College expert William Murray has been very closely read by senior Bush Administration players in various appropriate agencies.

So while it may be psychologically comforting for some pro-Taiwan folks to blame it on State (for example) that's not the real situation, they argue.

For "Perspective" tonite we're providing selections from the 32-page Murray paper which has clearly been so influential. You can ask yourself how YOU would react, were you a decision-maker, knowing that he is not speaking from out in left-field...rather, he is voicing concerns long expressed by experts in and out of the US military itself:

"It is difficult to escape the conclusion that China either already has or shortly will have the ability to ground or destroy Taiwan's air force and eliminate the navy at a time of its own choosing. This prospect fundamentally alters Taiwan's defense needs and makes the intended acquisition from the United States of diesel submarines, P-3 aircraft, and PAC-3 interceptors ill advised.

Diesel submarines are poor antisubmarine platforms, since with their low speed and limited underwater endurance they simply cannot search quickly large volumes of ocean for quiet submarines. These physical restrictions also limit their versatility as antisurface platforms. They are, for all practical purposes, four-knot minefields. At a cost of over U.S. $1.5 billion each and with indeterminate delivery dates, conventional submarines also carry significant opportunity costs, as some in Taipei clearly recognize. Finally, submarines are no more likely than other naval ships tied up at exposed piers to survive the opening salvo of a war with China.

Taiwan's apparent decision to purchase up to twelve submarine-hunting P-3C aircraft is similarly brought into question. Although these planes can collect valuable information during peacetime and in crisis, in wartime they would be sitting ducks while on the ground (though hardened shelters might protect P-3s) and aloft would require uncontested air superiority to have any chance of accomplishing their mission.100 In any case, Taipei cannot protect its runways. Patriot surface-to-air missiles have some utility against short-range ballistic missiles, but China already has the means to defeat this expensive air-defense system.

The implication is that Taiwan would be far better served by hardening, and building redundancy into, its civil and military infrastructure and systems. In that way the island could reasonably hope to survive an initial precision bombardment, deny the PRC the uncontested use of the air, repel an invasion, and defy the effects of a blockade for an extended period. Many of these actions, in fact, would be consistent with recent efforts by Taiwan to improve its defenses. Others, however, would entail substantial shifts that some in Taiwan's navy and air force would doubtless oppose. Air force leaders would be understandably loath to admit that their fighters cannot defend Taiwan's skies; their navy counterparts might similarly resist suggestions that their fleet is acutely vulnerable in port. Both services' political champions would certainly challenge the implications of this article's analysis. So too would the arms manufacturers who stand to benefit from the sale of aircraft, ships, and supporting systems to Taiwan.

Yet under present conditions it is doubtful that the people and government of Taiwan could withstand a determined PRC assault for long. A hasty American military intervention would be Taiwan's only hope, but only at the risk of strategic miscalculation and nuclear escalation. A "porcupine" strategy - a Taiwan that was patently useless to attack - would obviate the need; it would also make a determined Taipei conspicuously able to deny the objective of a bombardment or defeat an invasion, thus deterring either scenario. Ability to resist a full-scale campaign - long-range precision bombardment, invasion, and blockade - for a substantial amount of time would allow its potential allies to shape their responses carefully. Above all, demonstrable Taiwanese resilience would diminish Beijing's prior confidence in success, strengthen cross-strait deterrence, and reduce the risk of the United States being dragged into a conflict with China.

Meanwhile, a porcupine strategy would restore the United States to unequivocal adherence to the Taiwan Relations Act, since Taiwan would be in the market only for defensive systems. Taiwan would find itself with a better defense for fewer dollars, and the United States would abide by the 17 August 1982 joint communique© declaring that it would "not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those [arms] supplied in recent years...and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution."102

Finally, and most important, a porcupine approach would shift the responsibility for Taiwan's defense to Taiwan, rendering U.S. intervention in a cross-strait battle a last resort instead of the first response. Many observers believe that Taiwan today relies unduly on a perceived American security guarantee and does not do enough to provide for its own defense. Yet since 2000 the Kuomintang and the Democratic People's Party have not framed a defense debate that could produce the open, honest appraisal that is desperately needed if domestic consensus on a viable defense is to be achieved. A Taiwan that China perceived could be attacked and damaged but not defeated, at least without unacceptably high costs and risks, would enjoy better relations with the United States and neutralize the threat posed by many of China's recently acquired military capabilities. Unfortunately, political gridlock in Taipei stands in the way of any such hopes. It is not that Taiwan does not do enough to construct a viable defense but that it is not doing the right things.

William S. Murray is associate research professor at the U.S. Naval War College, where his research focuses on China's navy. He conducted submarine deployments and qualified to command nuclear submarines prior to retiring from the U.S. Navy. He is the coeditor of and a contributing author to China's Future Nuclear Submarine Force and China's Energy Strategy: The Impact on Beijing' s Maritime Policies...

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

It's not a bright idea to base your policy decision on the opinion of a single expert, however intelligent. Especially when he is saying what you want to hear. UPDATE: Original article is here. Murray's assessment, little birdies say, appears to have been made without visiting Taiwan. I'll be talking about it in a post tomorrow.

Defense News reports:

The Chinese will pocket the Bush administration’s Taiwan arms halt as the baseline for approaching the next administration,” said Tkacik, now with the Heritage Foundation. “Beijing will make it very painful for the next administration to restart arms supplies to Taiwan, insisting that doing so would renege on Bush commitments, imaginary or otherwise.”

The package has been held up since December. It includes items promised by the Bush administration in 2001, plus newer items such as attack and utility helicopters.?

"All in all, Taiwan policy is in complete tatters," said Rupert Hammond-Chambers, president, U.S.-Taiwan Business Council. “The administration is blatantly gaming the system in a manner that runs contrary to U.S.-Taiwan interests.

“There are simply no other examples of a non-NATO or other security relationship having its congressional notifications stacked at [the U.S. Department of] State in this manner. They are doing so over a zero­sum attitude toward U.S.-China-Taiwan relations and the equities Mr. Bush believes will be hurt by following through on his 2001 commitment.”

And the CNA report connects the reluctance to sell the weapons to the financial situation:

Taiwan's plans to procure weapons systems from the United States remain unchanged, as the nation is resolved to defend itself militarily and needs to beef up its self-defense capability, Chang Shuo-wen, a ruling Kuomintang (KMT) legislative caucus whip said Sunday.

Taiwan has submitted its military procurement plans to the United States and it is now up to the Bush administration to decide what to do about Taiwan's requests, President Ma Ying-jeou said recently.

Taiwan is seeking to buy a weapons package of anti-tank missiles, Apache helicopters, Patriot PAC-3 missile batteries, diesel-electric submarines, P3C Orion anti-submarine aircraft, sea-launched Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and Black Eagle helicopters from the US.

The US Department of State told Taiwanese news media Friday that Taiwan's arms procurement package is still under inter-departmental screening by the George W. Bush administration.

Once a final decision is made on the arms procurement package, the executive branch would notify Congress immediately, the State Department said.

When asked whether the arms procurement proposal would be left up to the new US administration, a State Department official said that "there is no timetable for that matter."

Commenting on the uncertainties surrounding the arms deal, KMT Legislator Lin Yu-fang, who is the convener of the Legislative Yuan Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee, said there is no need for Taiwan to worry too much, given that Taiwan remains part of the strategic interests of the United States.

Washington would not like to see the Taiwan Strait become a waterway of China, as this would open a big hole in the US defense frontline in the West Pacific, he added.

Noting that the supply of defense weapons to Taiwan is part of the stipulations in the United States' Taiwan Relations Act, Lin expressed confidence that whoever is elected the next president of the US will not renege on the commitment.

Lin attributed the "bumpy ride" of Taiwan's arms procurement package partly to Washington's reliance on China's cooperation in US anti-terrorism efforts and in its spiraling financial and economic storms. For example, China currently holds between US$500 billion and US$950 billion worth of US Treasury bonds, he said.

We're in deep, deep trouble.

[Taiwan]

Twofer on Weapons

Michael Chase, who writes cogently on Taiwan defense issues, has a new piece out in the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief on Taiwan's Defense Budget: how much is enough in the new era of cross-strait lovefesting? Ok, so he didn't title it that way...an excerpt:

Taiwan’s ambitious force modernization goals include procurement of P-3C maritime patrol aircraft, army attack helicopters, army utility helicopters, PAC-3 missile defense systems, F-16C/D fighters, and diesel-electric submarines, and upgrading Taiwan’s existing PAC-2+ systems. Importantly, as proponents of higher defense spending point out, strengthening Taiwan’s defense entails more than force modernization alone. The transformation of the military is an equally important component of Taiwan’s defense modernization program. Indeed, beyond its plans to purchase new weapons and equipment, Taiwan is also trying to move toward a professional, all-volunteer military, and this has important implications for the island’s defense budget because the transition to an all-volunteer military will result in further and perhaps quite substantial increases in personnel costs, which are already high as a share of overall defense spending. Taiwan’s efforts to streamline its military may help offset this to some extent. The Taiwanese Ministry of National Defense (MND) plans to reduce the size of the military from its current 270,000 members to about 250,000, and then gradually reduce the size of the armed forces further to 200,000 troops (China Post, May 22; China Brief, July 3). Even as Taiwan continues to reduce the overall size of its military, however, it will likely need to spend more money on salaries, benefits, and quality of life improvements to recruit and retain the people it needs, especially highly skilled officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs). In a recent testimony before the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee of the Legislative Yuan (LY)—Taiwan’s legislature, Defense Minister Chen Chao-min acknowledged that a defense budget equivalent to 3 percent of GDP would not be enough to complete the transition to an all-volunteer military (Taipei Times, May 22). The transition to an all-volunteer military will also increase the costs of benefits for retired military personnel, including education, welfare, and medical care expenses, as Kua Hua-chu, the head of Taiwan’s Veterans Affairs Commission, recently pointed out in testimony before the LY (China Post, June 3).

In other important issues, Kathrin Hille, one of the island's most knowledgeable correspondents, reports in the Financial Times that Taiwan will not be buying the F-16s this year.

The move comes as the Bush administration debates what arms to sell Taiwan given the improvement in relations between Taipei and Beijing. One senior US official said the US was evaluating whether to sell Taiwan a separate $11bn (€6.95bn, £5.5bn) package of arms, but was not currently considering selling F-16s. He added that there was only a "low possibility" that a sale could happen this year.

The official said Taiwan had told the US its priority for now was the $11bn package, but the US expected Taiwan would return to the F-16 issue in the future. He said the US still needed to debate what weapons the US should supply Taiwan given the better relations with China, and whether F-16s were even appropriate.

"That may not be the best way to defend the island against an invasion. Who says F-16s are the best way? Who has made this judgement, Lockheed Martin? Because that is certainly an option for defence, but there are a whole lot of other ways that you protect yourself from an attack," the official said. The Taiwanese move comes
as Admiral Timothy Keating, head of US Pacific command, this week said Washington had suspended arms sales to Taiwan because "there is no pressing, compelling need for at this moment arms sales to Taiwan".

However, Taipei officials said they believed that the US had temporarily put off arms sales in order to secure Beijing's co-operation in tackling trouble in Iran and North Korea.

Bad news for the island. As I have noted in the past, KMT officials publicly and privately have said they want the weapons -- the decision appears to be a unilateral decision by the Bush Administration.

[Taiwan]