|
|
|
US’
two-pronged policy on Nov 29, 2004 US continues two-pronged policy By
Yu Pen-li M Following the recent resignation of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, US
President George W. Bush appointed National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as
Powell's successor. Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, will be replacing Rice. All
signs point to members of the "Vulcans," Bush's foreign policy team
during the 2000 presidential election campaign, directing foreign policy in his
new cabinet. Yet decisionmakers such as conservative hawks Vice President Dick
Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still seem to view China as a
strategic competitor. This looks positive for Taiwan. But are things really as
they seem? The most interesting thing is Hadley's appointment. Hadley was a lawyer,
and during the 1970s he was a policy analyst in the defense department. He was
later assistant secretary of defense during Bush senior's term in office,
specializing in nuclear and conventional arms control issues. In George W. Bush's first term, he made Hadley his deputy national security
adviser hoping that Hadley, with his experience in arms control issues, would be
able to explain the US missile defense plan to concerned countries. China is the
greatest obstacle to the implementation of the US missile defense plan in the
Asia-Pacific region, so Hadley should understand the strategic importance of
Taiwan's geopolitical position. As a result, the new Bush government's strategic
evaluation can be expected to lead to a deepening of security cooperation
between Taiwan and the US, rather than to the abandonment of Taiwan. There are possible compromises that could be made by realist members of the
Vulcan group, based on consideration of actual international political benefits
and interests. One example: although they are hoping for changes in the
Pyongyang government, tough behavior might induce a Chinese reaction. This could
seriously affect the region's strategic balance, so they might then take a
softer, multilateral approach to handling the North Korean nuclear issue. In the future, the new US government will face several new diplomatic
challenges, such as the reconstruction of Iraq, the Israeli-Palestine situation
following the death of Palestinian president Yasser Arafat and the North Korean
nuclear issue. Doubtless they would be glad to see stability in the Taiwan
Strait and the Asia-Pacific region so that they can concentrate on these other
issues. In particular, the US worries that nuclear weapons could fall into the
hands of terrorist organizations and lead to terrorist attacks on US soil.
Opposition to nuclear arms proliferation, therefore, is at the top of the US
foreign policy agenda. Following this logic, China will become its most
important partner when it comes to global non-terrorism and anti-proliferation
efforts. Based on a realistic appraisal of the international political
situation, the members of the Vulcan group will expand cooperation with China
and downplay differences of opinion. In other words, if the Vulcans want to see China as a diplomatic partner in
the 21st century, it would be impossible for them to oppose Beijing over the
question of Taiwan. Based on Washington's objective of strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific
region, stability in the Taiwan Strait will be an important pillar of US
security, and Taiwan will be key in supporting this strategic balance. From this
perspective, Bush's new team will not rashly abandon Taiwan, and the US is
unwilling to tie any other issue to its arms sales to Taiwan. But this support for Taiwan is not a blank check for Taiwan to use any
which way. Although Bush didn't repeat the statements Powell made at a press
conference in Beijing while meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the APEC
summit in Chile, this doesn't mean that the Powell effect has dissipated. The US
leaders' emphasis on a consistent cross-strait policy seems to mean that the US
will continue its clear, two-pronged policy: China should not take armed action,
and Taiwan should not declare independence. In other words, the most important goal of US cross-strait policy is still
to maintain the status quo, as defined by the US. If Taiwan's government
continues to misjudge the international situation, and US statements lead them
to believe that the storm following Powell's statement has blown over, it may
continue to move toward independence by, for example, holding a Taiwan
independence referendum, or amending the law to allow changing the national
emblem. This may cause the situation in the Taiwan Strait to deteriorate and
maybe even give rise to a fourth cross-strait crisis. In future, it is possible that Washington will issue a fourth communique
with Beijing, to avert a crisis and guarantee stability in the Taiwan Strait and
in East Asia. A fourth communique could clearly state that Taiwan does not enjoy
sovereignty and that the US opposes Taiwan's independence, and even change the
tactic of "pushing for dialogue" to "pushing for
unification" in order to restrain Taiwan's actions. This could be even more
harmful to Taiwan. For the sake of its national interest, the most urgent task for Taiwan's
government is to show restraint, strive for cross-strait stability, rebuild
mutual trust between Taiwan and the US and put the US-Taiwan relationship back
on track. This is the only way that the nation can continue to exist and
develop. Yu Pen-li is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of American
Studies, Tamkang University.
China's subs coming into play By
Richard Halloran The chief rivals for submarine supremacy in this region are China, which
has given priority to submarines as it acquires a blue-water or deep-sea navy,
and the US, which is rebuilding submarine capabilities that had atrophied after
the Cold War. China and the US are not alone. North Korea has a sizeable coastal
submarine force and South Korea has begun to counter it. Japan has a modest but
proficient fleet. Taiwan is pondering the procurement of eight boats that would triple the
size of its force. The city-state of Singapore has three submarines and is
acquiring a fourth. Australia has six modern submarines, based on a Swedish
design, for surveillance in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. In South Asia, India has been acquiring a submarine fleet with Russian
help. A specialist on South Asia, Donald Berlin of the Asia-Pacific Center for
Security Studies in Hawaii, has written that India will also build six to twelve
French-designed submarines and is working on a nuclear-powered boat that will go
to sea in 2006. Pakistan has launched two submarines and is constructing a third. Berlin
says "Pakistan will likely want a submarine-based nuclear weapons delivery
system" to deter India. Iran has several submarines. Even Israel, usually considered a Mediterranean nation, is believed to have
sent submarines armed with cruise missiles through the Red Sea into the Indian
Ocean to deter a potential nuclear attack by Iran. In contrast, Russia, which once deployed 90 submarines into the Pacific,
has laid up all but 20 boats because of that nation's financial distress. "They've held onto their more capable boats," said a US official
with access to intelligence reports, but their operations are constricted. The Chinese submarine in Japanese waters was one of five Han class boats,
the first of China's nuclear-powered submarines. After she left port at Ningbo,
she was detected by Taiwan as she steamed east, then by the US near Guam in the
central Pacific, and finally by Japan after she turned north to steam near
Okinawa. After a Japanese protest, Chinese spokesmen expressed regrets and blamed
the mistake on unexplained "technical difficulties," raising questions
about Chinese seamanship; the Chinese have long had problems operating
submarines. China is acquiring submarines to "patrol the littorals, blockade the
Taiwan Strait, and stalk [US] aircraft carriers," say two researchers, Lyle
Goldstein and Bill Murray, at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. China, which has 50 submarines in two older classes, began expanding 10
years ago when it bought four Russian "Kilo" submarines, then ordered
eight more in 2002 for delivery starting next year. The Chinese are producing the "Song" class of attack boats armed
with cruise missiles. Training has been intensified throughout the fleet. It is in the Taiwan Strait that Chinese and US submarines would most likely
clash if China seeks to blockade or invade Taiwan, the country over which it
claims sovereignty but whose people prefer to remain separate. US submarines would go into action because Taiwan lacks sufficient
anti-submarine weapons to break a blockade or stop an invasion. The US policy is
to help defend Taiwan from an unprovoked assault by China. In the US, the commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Walter Doran, has
made the revival of submarine warfare his top priority and has set up a special
staff to oversee that resurgence. The Navy has recently established an
anti-submarine warfare center in San Diego to improve training and readiness. The US has moved two submarines from Hawaii to Guam and will add a third to
base them closer to operating areas. Where 60 percent of US submarines operated
in the Atlantic during the Cold War and 40 percent in the Pacific, the Navy is
planning to reverse that ratio. Attack submarines whose mission after the Cold War was to launch cruise
missiles at land and sea targets and to gather intelligence have been assigned
anew the task of fighting other submarines since the best anti-submarine weapon
is another submarine. Six "SURTASS" ships (Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor System) that
use powerful sonar to detect submarines in vast areas of deep water have now
been assigned to the Pacific. Four ballistic missile submarines are being
converted to carry 150 cruise missiles each and to infiltrate 100 commandos onto
hostile beaches. Concluded a US official: "Once again, the value of stealth is being
recognized." Richard Halloran is a freelance journalist based in Hawaii. Editorial: Missing: two policy platforms We are thinking of running the following classified ad: "Missing: two
policy platforms, one blue one green, last seen ...". That's the problem,
because it's been so long since there's been any serious policy debate that we
can't remember when it was last seen. We are well aware that President Chen Shui-bian has been saying something
new every Saturday and Sunday for the last three weeks, but look at what he has
been saying. Chen wants to abolish "Taiwan Province," reform the
Constitution, draw a clear line between party and state, vest Republic of China
(ROC) sovereignty with the people, perhaps hold a referendum if pushed to it and
pass the weapons bill if he can. All the while he is talking about -- but
providing no evidence for -- a "soft coup" in March. You have to go back a month to hear the kind of policy pledge familiar in
legislative elections elsewhere -- implementation of a senior citizens' pension
plan. All the rest is fluff; rousing fluff for the Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP) faithful, but fluff all the same. Because while this newspaper agrees with
and has long advocated most of what Chen has proposed, we also note that these
are mostly symbolic issues. They have a lot to do with national identity, but
have little to do with the day-to-day business of making Taiwan a better place
to live. Elsewhere in this newspaper, we report on the frustration felt by both
environmental and women's groups. Issues close to their heart are not being
addressed, and we share that frustration. Taiwan has one of the most degraded
environments of any newly industrialized country, thanks to the Chinese
Nationalist Party's (KMT) shortsightedness. What can be done to rectify this?
Gender equality in the workplace, too, is still far from being a reality here,
despite numerous laws mandating it. There's been no talk of solving Taiwan's
dire fiscal problems, no mention of industrial hollowing out, no discussion of
the possibility that the "Taiwan model" of economic growth is
exhausted and urgently needs a rethink. Compared with the pan-blues, however, the DPP look like policy wonks. The
only thing we have heard at any time from the blues is that a blue majority is
needed in the legislature to prevent the greens from doing anything. Perhaps
that is not exactly what they say, but it is certainly what their message means:
"Elect us so we can prevent Chen's hotheads from getting anything
done." Of course we know the blues have more pressing concerns than policy,
such as how to cope with KMT Chairman Lien Chan's delusional psychosis, and how
to steal as much from KMT coffers as possible before the greens can make good on
their threat to get the stolen assets back. So the election campaign runs on, in a total vacuum of real policies.
Perhaps that is simply because there is a broad consensus on the way the big
things -- the economy, for example -- should be handled, so that all that is
left to quibble about is the symbols. There's certainly room for debate. Does Taiwan want a small government,
low-tax, low-benefit kind of society, as it traditionally has had? Or does it
want a high-tax, high-benefit, European-style welfare state? This cleavage is
not reflected in the two camps at the moment, and more's the pity. Perhaps we
simply have to wait for the defeated KMT to reinvent itself before the body
politic becomes more sensible. Hopefully that day will not be too long delayed.
|
|
|
