Beijing's expanding military a global issue

By Liu Kuan-the

The US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on "The Military Power of the People's Republic of China" highlighted growing concern, not only among US officials but also regional nations, over the impact of the rapid modernization of China's military forces on regional security, and its belligerence toward Taiwan as the cross-strait military balance has continued to tilt toward China.

The report related that the People's Liberation Army now has 650 CSS-6 and 730 CSS-7 short-range missiles targeted at Taiwan, as well as over 700 aircraft, including a rising share of advanced Su-27 fighters, two-thirds of its naval forces and 375,000 ground troops stationed across from Taiwan.

New findings also remind the world that China is improving its strategic missiles, capable of targeting India, Russia, virtually all of the US, as well as the Asia-Pacific theater as far south as Australia and New Zealand. Beijing's recent engagement in conflicts with its neighbors over territory and resource rights, also illustrate political uncertainties.

While the report attributed the rationale for Beijing's continued military build-up as a move to both prevent Taiwan's independence and to counter any third-party -- potentially the US -- intervention in cross-strait affairs, the modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and its explicit ambition to threaten countries in the region, is cause for more global concern.

President Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly pledged that he will not pursue Taiwan's de jure independence during the remainder of his second term. The political situation, with the pan-green camp holding less than half of the seats in the legislature, also inhibits the administration's actions.

Moreover, the third-party argument plays an illegitimate role -- unless a cross-strait conflict were to be initiated solely by the People's Republic of China. Washington will help defend Taiwan and provide Taipei with defensive-oriented weapons in accordance with its own domestic law, the Taiwan Relations Act.

The irony is, China unilaterally enacted the so-called "Anti-Secession" Law this March despite international concerns. The law provides a legal basis for the PLA to employ "non-peaceful means" to resolve cross-strait disputes. To put it simply, Beijing will have the absolutely right to define the conditions for using force against Taiwan.

Under such circumstances, one cannot help but ask the following essential questions: Does Taiwan's independence and US interference in cross-strait affairs constitute an apparent and direct threat against China's national security? If not, why would the Chinese government increasingly and continuously expand its military power and develop long-range missile systems in the absence of a clear and present danger from the outside?

The Pentagon report is a wake-up call to the international community that Taiwan is not the only potential victim of Beijing's missile development and military aggrandizement. China's emerging military threat has extended beyond the Asia-Pacific region to Russia, Central and Southern Asia, and Australia.

Even though the Chinese authorities have introduced the concept of "peaceful rise," a new term to describe China's emergence, the notion of the "China threat" is by no means limited to the Taiwan Strait.

In pursuing engagement with China, the international community, including the US, must state clearly that safeguarding a strong and democratic Taiwan is in the interest of US efforts to create peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. Only by offering Taiwan support for continued democratic consolidation and defense can the impact of the "China threat" be jointly managed.

Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.

Try going outside the system

By Adam Coates

For all the allegations of sleaze that stalk the levels of power in Taiwan -- as with any country in the world -- I for one would like to congratulate the successive democratic governments of Taiwan and its hard-working people for doing their best to live by the requirements of international law.

Though it is shunned by most international organizations, Taiwan still attempts to abide by the laws created by everyone else. I refer to its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the numerous times it has extended the "olive branch" of peace to its neighbor, China.

This is of course is in accordance with the preamble of the charter of the UN, concerning states living together in "peace" and as "good neighbors."

Though history will hopefully congratulate Taiwan for its lightning-quick democratic reforms and its commitment to peaceful relations with its neighbors, I can't help but think that at the present time at least, it is also having a detrimental effect.

Of course Taiwan should fully commit itself to the principles of the so-called civilized world, at the very least just for the peace of mind. That's not the problem. The problem is that for all the international community's rhetoric about condemning terrorism, despotic regimes and human rights abuses, the very people it usually seems to make concessions to are those that break the rule of law.

One only has to look at the make-up of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, to see that we are in serious trouble. We have one of the only remaining imperial powers of the world, China, which regularly violates human rights laws. Next to that we have Russia, which last year was the only country to have its democratic ranking on the Freedom House index go down a notch, from "partly free" to "not free."

For many years Taiwan has tried to join the UN, that big, happy, global family. Why, one might ask? Who in their right mind wants to be associated with an organization that votes for Libya to chair the human rights commission? An organization that issued a release rebuking the US for labeling the atrocities in the Darfur region as "genocide?"

One might see this rebuke as symbolic of the UN's fear of actually having to act collectively against a rule-breaker. Of course Taiwan might be accepted if it was prepared to blow up and kill innocent civilians. The general assembly was quite happy to give Yasser Arafat -- a man responsible for much bloodshed and death -- and the Palestine Liberation Organization permanent observer status at the UN. Meanwhile the great man of peace, the Dalai Lama, and Tibet, have long been forgotten.

Why does the international community tolerate, even encourage the long list of despots, brutal terrorists and law breakers out there in the world today? Is it the mistaken belief that appeasement might work? Is it trade? So much money flows in and out of China, that the EU is seriously considering lifting the arms embargo on China for fear of labeling it in the same category as regimes such as Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

What's wrong with placing China in the same league as these other brutal regimes? One of the most respected organizations in the world, the Freedom House Association, does exactly that, while Amnesty International regularly condemns the Chinese government for carrying out human rights abuses.

So there it is, Taiwan. If you really want international recognition, the process is simple. Simply engage in unlawful and violent practices and the world will be all ears. Of course the largely peace-loving Taiwanese would not do such a thing and to the people of Formosa I would say keep on following the rules of international law, as one day future generations will thank you for it.

To the international community, I put this question to you: What type of a world would you like to pass on to your children? Would you like a world full of Arafats, bin Ladens and Mugabes, or a world full of Mandelas, Dalai Lamas and Yushchenkos? The ball's in your court. I know which one the Taiwanese and I would both prefer.

Adam Coates

United Kingdom

International law no help

By Bert Chen

Quite a controversy has erupted within these pages over Richard Hartzell's recent interpretations of Taiwan's legal status as defined by international law ("Recover Taiwan's post-war position" July 15, page 8). As a humble citizen of Taiwan, I feel deeply honored and deeply grateful for the attention and concern of so many people for my oppressed country.

However, international law is not going to help Taiwan. It will not stop China's ambitions. International law will not cause the US to begin a military occupation of Taiwan. And international law will not quell the incessant petty squabbling among Taiwanese politicians.

Worse, according to Hartzell's interpretation, Taiwan should be under the military occupation of the US. What if academics in Beijing came up with the same conclusion? This would provide the People's Liberation Army hawks with a nice excuse to "liberate those comrades in Taiwan to save them from the yoke of US imperialism and occupation," a scenario I would not exactly relish.

In the past, international law failed to prevent World War I and World War II from happening, because no law and no treaty could restrain the crazy, irrational ambitions of the Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini and all the rest. China has crazy, irrational ambitions, as evidenced by its expanding military, its barbaric behavior toward other delegates at international conferences and its desire to nuke innocent US cities.

Hopefully, Taiwan's fate will be resolved by the rational, collective decision of its 23 million citizens. Such a result would, I think, carry more weight with the international community than any law or treaty. It might also make China think twice about taking on a united nation and the overwhelming support of international public opinion.

Bert Chen

Taipei

Legal expertise questioned

By Kenneth Choy

Jerry Mills (Letters, July 20, page 8) defends Richard Hartzell (Letters, July 4, page 8) against Amy Chen's criticism that Hartzell's work lacks legal scholarship (Letters, July 8, page 8).

It seems that in Mills' view, living in Taiwan for 30 years, fluency in Mandarin and writing on the differences between Chinese and Western cultural norms sufficiently qualify one as a legal expert.

Hartzell, who does not appear to have any formal legal training, proclaims himself an expert in international law and cites his own writings as legal authority supporting his theories -- his legal theory must be sound because he wrote it. If you disagree with him, he will say, as he did in his July 4 letter, that you have faulty "underlying legal assumptions" and you are "only considering half of the entire body of international law."

Chen described the questionable soundness of Hartzell's theories as bordering on the ridiculous and suggested that he gain a basic understanding of international law from real experts before pontificating on international law or criticizing others. I concur.

Kenneth Choy

Hong Kong

Don't appease China

By Lee Long-hwa

Will Hutton wrote recently about CNOOC's bid for Unocal ("China, US need to avoid conflict as global resources dwindle," July 12, page 9). Some commentators urge calm in the face of the Chinese economy's seemingly insatiable appetite, and a retreat from what they term protectionism, or worse, hysteria.

Some warn of retaliation by Beijing for American concern over China's aggressive growth, and for characterizing China as a "security threat."

Hutton also warns against America's tendency to categorize CNOOC's bid as a threat to "national security."

But many commentators (including Hutton) skip over a crucial fact in their analysis. Hutton glosses over it as follows: "Much Congressional sound and fury has been vented on Russia for not opening up more to US oil companies which want to buy strategic reserves. Now that boot is on the other foot -- China buying an American oil company and its reserves."

The CNOOC bid is not a typical corporate takeover by a typical large corporation, or even a typical foreign corporation. It does not resemble any acquisition made in Russia by a US company, or by any Japanese conglomerate in the US, including the myriad acquisitions by Sony.

The reason for the difference is this: CNOOC is not a private corporation, but instead almost wholly owned by China's communist government.

In other words, it is not a foreign corporation trying to acquire Unocal, but rather it is communist China that is trying to buy it. I for one am not comfortable with the acquisition of any substantial American assets by the communist government of China, protests by Beijing about CNOOC's independence notwithstanding.

The fact remains that the communists own 71 percent of CNOOC, and if anyone believes politics does not figure into management, I have a bridge I would like to offer to them.

As for China's possible good intentions regarding such assets, one merely needs to look at the controversy surrounding the huge number of oil wells seized by Beijing as "state assets" from independent drillers once oil was found -- resulting in a huge class action against the Chinese government.

If China could be ruthless against its own people, just imagine what it could do with foreign assets. Companies owned by Beijing are not like other companies. They are subsidized by the Chinese government, inherently making competition unfair, and they are controlled by Beijing -- and therefore indirectly by the Chinese Communist Party -- making them inherently dangerous.

Control of CNOOC lies with a ruthless cadre of dictators who recently threatened to "nuke" the US in any fight over Taiwan. As long as China remains a bastion of communist tyranny and hegemony, the motives and movements of its puppet masters and puppets will be viewed with suspicion.

Hutton refers to the similarities between the current "rise" of China, and the "rise" of Germany in the late 1800s. He writes: "No country has offered such a comparable challenge to the world order since Germany's rise at the end of the 19th century." But Hutton's chortling merely refers to the economic impact, and not the political.

Within several decades of Germany's meteoric rise, the world was plunged into two world wars. If Hutton is suggesting that appeasement of Beijing would avoid conflict, he is partly right. Europe swallowed Hitler's demands for appeasement at first, and it avoided immediate conflict.

But if history teaches anything, it is that appeasement of the ruthless never satisfies an insatiable appetite for power. In the long term, that strategy with Germany led to years of war, and 50 million deaths. Snuffing out the insatiable impulse in the first instance would have been better.

There is always a price for dealing with the devil, and putting America's assets in the hands of communist China is a mistake. Chevron? No problem. BP? No problem. The government of Venezuela? Big problem. Communist China? Hell no!

Lee Long-hwa

United States