US realism on July 02, 2004

US realism unsettling for Taiwan

By Li Thian-hok

There are two schools of thought in the US foreign policy establishment -- realist and neoconservative.

The realists are represented by Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig; both former secretaries of state; Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor; and academics such as David Shambaugh of George Washington University and Kenneth Lieberthal of the University of Michigan. The realists believe that foreign policy should be guided primarily by national interests, not idealistic goals such as advancement of human rights and expansion of democracy across the globe. In their view, China's rise to the status of a great economic and military power is unstoppable and the US must seek accommodation with China in order to keep the peace in Asia and beyond.

In the realists' view, Taiwan is a small nation. Its population is less than 2 percent that of China. China is determined to annex Taiwan and may be willing to bear whatever political, diplomatic, economic and military cost that is required to achieve that end, including a military conflict with the US. Therefore, it is in the US' interest to encourage cross-strait dialogue and economic integration, hopefully leading to a peaceful unification of the two sides.

The realists realize that the Taiwanese have striven hard to turn the nation into a democracy and it would be unseemly for the US to push democratic Taiwan into the arms of authoritarian China. This policy is thus sometimes justified with the argument that economic reform and globalization will inevitably lead to political liberation and democracy in China.

Besides, Taiwanese businesses and Taiwan's government appear amenable to eventual unification with China, as evidenced by cumulative direct investments in China that total over US$100 billion, and growing exports to China, which were 34.5 percent of total exports last year. Nearly 7,000 factories were shut down in Taiwan last year, while the number of Taiwanese living and working in China exceeds 500,000 and Chinese citizens legally residing in Taiwan number 300,000. So the realists do not see an independent Taiwan free from China's political control as a viable option in the long run.

The neocons differ from traditional conservatives in that they advocate pro-active US involvement in world affairs. Examples of prominent neoconservatives include Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary; Bill Kristol, the chief editor of the Weekly Standard; and scholars affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute such as Thomas Donnelly. The neocons believe that expansion of democracy -- a universal value -- is not only morally right, but also serves the US' national interests because democracies tend not to attack each other and are less likely to become breeding grounds for terrorists. In contrast to the realists, who stress commercial gains for multinational corporations, the neocons are more mindful of US geopolitical interests and national security.

The neocons worry about the growing US trade deficit with China (US$124 billion last year). They are also worried about China's rapid economic growth, which enables the People's Liberation Army to acquire advanced weapons from Russia and modernize itself with state-of-the-art military technology to help China achieve its objective of absorbing Taiwan, turning Japan and Korea into China's vassal states, replacing the US as the dominant power in Asia and eventually challenging the US' role as the sole superpower. The neocons therefore firmly support Taiwan's status as a de facto independent nation, at least until it becomes clear that a rising China will not threaten US strategic interests and national security with its imperial expansionism.

US policy toward Taiwan is the result of a debate between the neocons and realists, and often reflects the influence of both schools. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the US, however, the voice of the realists, in support of warmer relations with China, has become stronger, while the voice of the neocons advising caution has become muted. There are three main reasons for this development.

First, the US needs China's cooperation in the global "war on terror." While China's part in this war effort is not substantial, it does have the ability to obstruct US actions by virtue of its veto power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Second, the US hopes that China will apply its leverage with North Korea to persuade it to give up its nuclear weapons program. While the US is solicitous of Chinese help, Beijing's response has been rather lukewarm in six-nation talks thus far.

Third, there is the complex and difficult situation in Iraq. US President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq and overthrow former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein based on neocon arguments that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD); that Saddam was colluding with al-Qaeda; and that the US could transform post-Saddam Iraq into a democracy, which might inspire other Middle East nations to follow suit.

But no WMD were found and no meaningful links between Saddam and al-Qaeda link have been found. The prospects for a democratic Iraq look increasingly dubious given the intensity of the insurgency and the inadequate ability of the US forces to ensure the security of the Iraqi public. The neocons at the Pentagon have lost face and influence. When National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice formed the Iraq Stabilization Group to centralize Iraq policy at the National Security Council last October, the Pentagon was not consulted.

For now, regarding China and Taiwan, the realists are up and the neocons are down.

China's policy of lien mei chu tai (using the US to subdue Taiwan) has achieved remarkable success. A prime example is Bush's public denunciation of President Chen Shui-bian on Dec. 9 of last year during an appearance with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at the White House.

As US casualties in Iraq continue to mount, Bush's popular support is waning. In a Time/CNN poll conducted in May, only 48 percent of those polled said the US was right to invade Iraq, down from 53 percent in April. In a ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last month, only 50 percent of the respondents approved of the way Bush is handling the US campaign against terrorism, compared to a 95 percent approval rate in October 2001. A Bush victory in November's presidential election is no longer a sure thing.

So what will happen if the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry, wins the White House? Kerry clearly belongs to the realist camp. He imbibed his realism early in life, at the knee of his diplomat father. In April, Kerry said that the goal of the war in Iraq should be "a stable Iraq, not whether or not [Iraq] is a full democracy."

While campaigning in Iowa, Kerry had this to say: "Now is the time for us to also be strong with Taiwan and make it clear that while we are supportive of the democracy ... we are not going to permit them to declare independence, that would be unacceptable. And I think the way to resolve it is to continue to push, as we did with Hong Kong, Macau ... for a `one China, two systems.'"

Kerry's reference to "one China, two systems" is a major blunder. But what candidate Kerry says is not the same as what President Kerry could actually do. Kerry cannot simply waive away the US' Taiwan policy, which has been constructed carefully by the previous six US Presidents. Kerry seemed to be aware of this when he also said in Iowa: "No president can possibly allow Taiwan to slip backward from the democracy it has achieved ... we will not tolerate any kind of invasion."

In conclusion, regardless of whether realists or neocons are in the ascendancy and no matter who occupies the White House, the future of Taiwan is basically in the hands of the 23 million Taiwanese. With the re-election of Chen, the Taiwanese have indicated their wish to preserve their democracy and to reject annexation of Taiwan by authoritarian China. Taiwan has an opportunity now to deepen its democratic values and institutions and to consolidate its status as a de facto sovereign nation, provided the government and people of Taiwan can accomplish three critical tasks in a timely manner.

First, Taiwan must improve communications and build trust with the US government, explaining to Washington that pressure for a new constitution is coming from the public, who are fed up with the stalemate in the Legislative Yuan. It is unreasonable for Beijing to label such reform as tantamount to a declaration of formal independence and for Washington to parrot the Chinese position. Taipei, for its part, should be sensitive to Washington's desire not to give Beijing any excuse to initiate military action against Taiwan when the US military is stretched thin and will be stuck in Iraq for some years.

Second, Taipei should be attuned to Washington's concerns about the cross-strait military balance, which is rapidly shifting in China's favor, and about Taiwan's feckless posture about its own national defense. Wolfowitz recently told a delegation of legislators led by Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng that if the Taiwanese are not serious about their own national defense then the US won't be either. Wolfowitz could not have been more candid.

Third, Taipei must take care that its policy of cultural and economic integration with China and its program of opening Taiwan's gates to Chinese investment and immigration does not irreparably impair Taiwan's economic viability and national security.

Li Thian-hok is a Pennsylvania- based freelance commentator.

Lee launches constitution campaign

INDEPENDENT ACTION: Former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday lauded the launch of `Action for a Taiwanese Constitution' as the start of building a sovereign country
By Chang Yun-ping
STAFF REPORTER
 

Former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday led hundreds of supporters to launch the "Action for a Taiwanese Constitution " a private, non-governmental effort to campaign for the creation of a new Taiwan constitution. Lee said that the constitution should not contain the name "Republic of China" (ROC) and must assert Taiwan's independent sovereignty.

Addressing the campaign's inauguration ceremony, Lee, the general convener of the action, yesterday said this was an important moment for the people of Taiwan to begin building a real independent and sovereign country, which will be necessitated by the creation of Taiwan's own constitution.

"The new Taiwan constitution will ensure that Taiwan will become a normal country. This new constitution will deal with whether the country should adopt a three-branch governmental system and will define the relations between the administrative and legislative departments and ensure the impartiality of the judicial system. But above all, Taiwan's national status must be defined clearly; that is, Taiwan is Taiwan, and not a part of China," Lee said.

Lee yesterday signed a statement with other campaign co-conveners, witnessed by hund-reds of supporters in Taipei's Grand Hotel.

The statement reads that "the new constitution must not contain the name of Republic of China," excluding any elements that may lead to confusion with China.

"The new constitution must contain articles that are consistent with the sovereign state of Taiwan and the principles of international law. The people of Taiwan will decide the name of the state."

Lee said that the new constitution must protect Taiwan's sovereignty, while refraining from inf-ringing on the sovereignty of other countries. He said that the ROC Constitution violates international law because it includes the territories of the People's Republic of China and Mongolia.

Furthermore, Lee said that the ROC Constitution is not fit for use in Taiwan, as it was not made by the Taiwanese people; rather, it was designed for all Chinese people in 1946 and was promulgated in 1947.

The group's statement states that "In 1949, the Nationalist Government [also known as the Chinese Nationalist Party] retreated to Taiwan and began to implement a system of martial law and provisional articles for the period of Communist rebellion, under which the ROC Constitution was, in reality, nothing but dead."

Advocating that "Taiwan" be used as the name for the country in the new constitution, Lee said this effort can be traced back to 1999, when he proposed the "special state-to-state relations" theory to insist that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country. He also proposed similar concepts, such as "ROC in Taiwan" and "Taiwan ROC" in an effort to erase ROC as a symbol of Taiwan.

Lee cited UN Resolution 2758, adopted on Oct. 25, 1971, saying it clearly affirms that the ROC does not exist in the international community and therefore the name ROC is fictitious and must be abolished so as to protect the national status of Taiwan.

Prominent politicians who attended yesterday's inauguration ceremony included co-convener Ng Chiau-tong, chairman of World United Formosans for Independence, Yao Chia-wen , Examination Yuan President and former Democratic Progressive Party chairman, and constitutional expert Lee Hung-hsi .

Lee Hung-hsi, one of President Chen Shui-bian's top constitutional advisors, yesterday said Chen's constitutional revision plan is not at odds with Lee's plan to create a constitution.

"Chen is a pragmatic person. He knows that by amending the constitution, he could plead for the support of the opposition parties in a more humble way. His promise to give the people a new constitution by 2008 is the same as Lee's. It's just because he is the president and has to be careful about international pressure and the opinions of opposition leaders that he has to be a bit diplomatic in his [words]," Lee Hung-hsi said.

However, a prominent KMT figure, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng , yesterday said there would be little room for creating a new constitution since Chen has already declared he only wanted to amend the existing Constitution, and the pan-blue camp also would only support an amendment in the new legislature after the December legislative elections.

Multitude march for HK democracy

REUTERS , HONG KONG
 

Hundreds of thousands of people in white shirts poured onto the streets of Hong Kong yesterday to vent their frustration at Chinese rule and challenge Beijing's refusal to allow them to elect their own leaders.

Waving green and black banners and carrying umbrellas to shield them from the blazing sun, protesters chanted "Return power to the people, fight for democracy" as they streamed through the urban canyons of the shopping district to government offices in the heart of the city kilometers away.

"I am here to tell Beijing that we want democracy, we want to elect our own chief executive," said construction worker Chan Sum-kee, 54, like many others protesting for the first time.

The main organizer, the Civil Human Rights Front, said two hours into the march some 350,000 people had taken part -- 50,000 above the expected turnout. The government provided no numbers.

A large turnout signaling dissatisfaction could embarrass Chinese leaders and heighten Communist Party fears about losing political control of Hong Kong.

Beijing also worries that demands for more democracy could spill over to China and undermine their one-party rule.

Pro-democracy politicians will try to wrest control of Hong Kong's top lawmaking body from pro-China supporters in legislative elections in September.

Comments yesterday suggested that many Hong Kong people were looking ahead to those polls.

A chambermaid at one of Hong Kong's top hotels along the route said she regretted not being able to join the march, and added: "Even though I can't be there today marching, I will certainly make my feelings known at the election."

Police said there were no disturbances but the intense heat took its toll, with at least one person believed to have suffered heat stroke as temperatures topped 34?C.

The demonstration, timed to coincide with the seventh anniversary of the former British colony's return to China, gave Beijing a taste of what they fear most, a mass show of public dissent.

But leading pro-democracy activists were quick to stress that what Hong Kong people wanted was more freedom under Chinese rule, not independence.

"We are here today to fight for democracy," veteran campaigner Martin Lee said. "Not a single person here wants independence."

The white T-shirts symbolized hopes that China would one day offer the city greater democracy and freedoms. Other messages were more blunt.

"Hong Kong people's demands are being raped," one placard read.

Retirees and mothers carrying young children marched alongside protest veterans, highlighting the depth of feeling in favor of direct elections and dissatisfaction with China's hand-picked Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa.