China may have upper hand in five years: US report

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

Within five years, China's armed forces may be able to prevent the US from coming to Taiwan's aid against a military attack from China, a new US congressional report warns. Some expert observers, the report adds, feel that the Chinese military may already have such capabilities.

With current US naval capabilities, it could take two weeks or longer for the US to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan, lessening the chances that it could thwart China, the report says.

The document, China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Naval Capabilities, Background and Issues for Congress, was prepared in secret by the Congressional Research Service to help Congressional committees with oversight of the military to plan for US defense needs in the Western Pacific. It was published on Monday by the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, an organization that brings security-related information to public attention.

"Some analysts speculate that China may attain [or believe that it has attained] a capable maritime anti-access capability, or important elements of it, by about 2010," the report says.

Anti-access capability refers to preventing US naval access to the Taiwan Strait.

The issue of when China could attain such capabilities, the report says, "is significant because it can influence the kinds of options that are available to US policymakers for addressing the situation."

The potential for a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait was a main focus of the report.

"Observers believe that China's military modernization is aimed at fielding a force that can succeed in a short-duration conflict with Taiwan that finishes before the United States is able to intervene," the report says.

The Pentagon wants Taiwan to focus on acquiring systems that would "lengthen the time Taiwan could deny the PRC [People's Republic of China] from gaining air superiority, sea control, and physical occupation of [Taipei]," it says.

The time needed would be "at least five days" after a "credible warning" that an attack is imminent or underway.

But even then, the congressional researchers warn, the US navy might not be up to the task.

The report notes that so-called "early arriving forces," often involving warships stationed close to the Strait, would be of particular importance in a short conflict over Taiwan. Addressing this could involve having US warships based in locations such as Japan, Guam, Singapore or Hawaii, rather than the US West Coast.

At an expected average speed of 25 knots (46kph), over long Pacific Ocean distances for US submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers, a ship based in San Diego, California would take nearly 10 days to reach an area east of Taiwan after setting sail.

By contrast, a US warship based in Yokosuka, Japan, would take just under two days, one in Guam would take 2.2 days, and a ship sailing from Pearl Harbor in Hawaii would take more than seven days.

But added to these times would be delays for at-sea refueling, rough sea conditions, and the need to avoid sea mines and deal with other contingencies. Moreover, it would take time to get a ship and its crew ready to leave port.

Depending on a ship's status, "preparing it for rapid departure might require anywhere from less than one day to a few days," the report quotes a military expert as saying.

At present, the US has only one aircraft carrier based in the Western Pacific -- in Japan. The closest additional carriers are on the US West Coast, although carrier groups are regularly at sea in the Pacific, patrolling the area and conducting drills to hone their wartime skills.

"Given that a conflict with China could begin with little warning, this means that as much as two weeks could elapse before additional aircraft carriers reach the area of combat operations," the report quotes another expert as saying.

Reading tea leaves of Bush speech

By Nat Bellocchi

In his speech in Kyoto, Japan on Nov. 16, US President George W. Bush included the hope that China could look to Taiwan's democracy as an example for China's future political development. Predictably China brushed that aside. Any move that would lower the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) grasp on power is unacceptable. The response on the US side was equally predictable -- with those on one side calling the speech either a failure or an error, while those on the other cheered him for raising democratic values despite Beijing's dipleasure.

China's eventual democratization is in the long-term objective of the US. Having a democracy next door that is culturally close to China, and where people can communicate with the other side, could be a rather important opportunity to bolster that objective. Beijing of course opposes that line of thinking and for many US experts, that is enough to make them hesitate to pursue that objective too strenuously.

The speech showed most clearly that Bush wants US policy to include democratic values in its relationship with China. Some claimed the speech was meant primarily for domestic constituents. That doubtless played a role, but in the process it did help to raise that element of US policy priorities as well.

Bush said Taiwan had "created a free and democratic Chinese society." He also referred to the "need for dialogue between China and Taiwan."

Doubtless there are many in Taiwan that would have preferred him to use "Taiwanese" rather than "Chinese" in that context, but it was a broad statement and -- followed by a reference to dialogue between Taiwan and China -- may have helped keep the use of "Chinese" from being unwelcome.

However, among some people, especially in government, the use of the word "Chinese" in such circumstances prompted some concern that there might be a shift of US policy in the making.

New public statements by government experts are often seen as either trial balloons or creeping change that has already been decided.

One example is recent comments by government officials. Expressions such as "urged Chinese on both sides of the Strait," "potential for increasing contact and integration" and other remarks that praised the visits to China by Taiwanese opposition leaders were very controversial in Taiwan.

References to possible dialogue between China and Taiwan included: A wish to "see the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait resolve these issues," and comments that "It's clear that the mainland side would also like to be seen promoting dialogue without pre-conditions" (a surprising statement), and "it's up to the Chinese on both sides of the Strait to work out," etc.

These were official statements.

Perhaps all of these experts should read, or re-read the Shanghai Communique and a bit of its history. The communique states that "The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China."

The difference between the US word "acknowledges," as opposed to China's "recognizes," and what this means in this context, is well known.

Less known is the word "Chinese" in that statement. One might look at a book by the late John Holdridge -- a diplomat during the normalization of US relations with China -- (there are other sources as well), which describes how the US State Department replaced the word "people" in the draft with the word "Chinese" in the final version.

The reason was the view that some, perhaps a majority, of the people on Taiwan might not agree if ever they were permitted to say so.

The word "Chinese" in current circumstances now refers to the people in the People's Republic of China, and those in Taiwan who want it to apply to them. Recent remarks in the US from government officials and some experts, in mentioning visits by opposition leaders to China and how the US sees it as beneficial for the Chinese on both sides, may or may not always mean what is intended.

There has been some speculation in the media that the US and China are drawing closer to an agreement that Taiwan is Chinese and that independence will be opposed. That may be pure politicking in an election period, and in any event would need the consent of the Taiwanese people. For some, a more immediate concern is that the US may be supporting an opposition that would accept this as a matter of policy.

In the Bush speech there was no statement about security differences between the US and China, nor was there much about differences on economic issues. Within the US, there are also discrepancies over how to manage these issues. Experts that consider themselves to be realistic more often seek to compromise, and those that give more importance to values call for a stronger stance.

For the US, comparisons to similar issues with other countries in the past can be made, though no two can be exactly the same. Previous problems with Japan, especially over trade imbalances, were eventually overcome, but Japan financed its economic growth largely with its own currency, and mostly with its own companies. On security issues, trying to work with a strong potential adversary to avoid war while also preparing for the opposite is also not new for the US. In the Soviet era it was called a cold war.

The US-China relationship, and the policies that manage it, are going through a period of uncertainty in both countries. Where they go will have a fundamental impact on Taiwan.

Strengthening Taiwan's democracy at home, and finding ways to influence the people in those countries in East Asia that oppose democracy, especially China, would greatly strengthen Taiwan's relationship with the US, and its place in the international community.

Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Saturday's polls crucial for future of the nation

By Paul Lin

The "three-in-one" local government elections will soon be upon us, and with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) reeling from recent scandals, and trouble stirred up by the press and unscrupulous opposition politicians, things are getting tense. Some pan-green supporters and swing voters don't consider these elections to be important. This, together with voter apathy induced by the government's poor record and disillusionment over recent scandals, means DPP voters are more likely to stay away from the polls to punish the party.

This is dangerous. If the DPP does badly in these polls we could see the collapse of democracy and freedom in Taiwan. This is not mere scare-mongering.

First, in this election the Taiwanese are up against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). When former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan agreed to join forces with the CCP in order to suppress Taiwanese independence, he was effectively joining ranks with the bandits and hooligans working against Taiwan.

But how exactly are they going to achieve this? Through elections. If the pan-blues win, they will be in a better position to help the CCP control Taiwan through legal means. From what we have seen of the oppressive and callous way Beijing treats its own people, there is little doubt that this will only lead to the loss of Taiwan's democracy and freedom.

Second, some believe that things have changed now that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou has taken over the reins of the KMT from Lien. However, since Ma took over as KMT chairman, we have yet to see any of the promised reforms, nor has he taken a stand against Beijing. The special arms procurement bill has still not been passed, the national flag is not allowed at international competitions and the Mainland Affairs Council has been forced to follow more pro-China policies and had its budget slashed. These all show where Ma's loyalties lie.

Third, despite the seeming lack of importance of these elections, the central government needs the support of local governments, especially when it is facing an opposition which has a majority in the legislature. If local governments come under the control of the pro-China factions, it will spell disaster for the pan-green camp in the next legislative and presidential elections.

Fourth, the CCP's tentacles are already finding their way into grassroots Taiwanese society. They invited many county and city councilors to China to discuss imports of Taiwanese agricultural products, only to allegedly offer them bribes. This is just one example.

At the moment the pan-blues are pulling out all the stops to do well in these elections, creating scandals and inciting rumors. Rumors of homosexuality among party members have been used to court sympathy, Lee Teng-hui was hit with a NT$10 million (US$298,000) fine for defamation, and a raid of a private residence seized VCDs critical of the KMT and brought the maker in for questioning.

Trying to quash the voice of anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you smacks of the CCP. It is known as "white terror." Do you see those individuals making noises about "green terror" being dragged in for questioning by the DPP? If they are given even the slightest amount of power on the local government level they will do everything they can not only to reinstate the KMT as lords of the party-state system, but to work with Beijing to bring a new era of "red terror" to Taiwan.

I would suggest that Taiwan's voters, irrespective of whether they support the pan-green or pan-blue camp, think carefully about whether they want this.

Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.