China doesn't need missiles


Friday, Jan 25, 2008, Page 8

In addition to stealing Taiwan's allies and thwarting the nation's attempts to participate in international organizations, China attempts to ensure that Taiwan is practically invisible.

Late last month, Malawi yielded to the old carrot-and-stick routine and abandoned 42 years of diplomatic relations with Taiwan in favor of ties with China. Within days, the Malawian minister responsible for brokering the deal has reportedly fled the country with millions of yuan meant as a "sweetener" for his president.

In such times of crisis, Taipei routinely berates Beijing for practicing "checkbook diplomacy." But the reality is that Taiwan's "financial aid" simply can't compete. As a result, Taiwan has lost nine diplomatic allies in eight years.

And yet, China is still not satisfied and never misses an opportunity to belittle Taiwan on the world stage. The most recent example of this occurred during the Women's World Cup of Golf this week at Sun City, South Africa, where Taiwan's Wei Yun-jye (魏筠潔) and Amy Hung (洪沁慧) finished third. China's team, which finished 13th, convinced the hosts that our national flag should not be displayed.

Together with the "autonomous regions" of Xinjiang and Tibet, Taiwan is claimed by China, which insists that no other country should meddle in its "domestic affairs."

In this light, it is odd that China has asked the US to condemn Taiwan's referendums on UN membership. It is even stranger that Washington has happily obliged, with everyone from American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying the plebiscites are unnecessary, provocative and of no real benefit.

Despite Taiwan's dutiful attempts to play a responsible role in the world, it seems most countries are happy to humor China by not publicly contradicting its claim to Taiwan. It is sad that so many nations lack the courage to do the right thing.

In his New Year address last month, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) said China now has more than 1,300 missiles aimed at Taiwan. This is a significant increase from the 200 or so aimed at Taiwan in 2000.

In view of this imminent threat, it is remarkable that Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) counterpart Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) are competing to see who can best implement cross-strait flights.

Yes, increased trade with China may boost the economy. But that does not mean that the threat posed by China should be laughed off. And yet that is the message being sent by the country's presidential candidates, notwithstanding Ma's recent lecture on boosting the military.

Hsieh may be trying to neutralize Ma's "it's the economy, stupid" argument, but that makes his actions only marginally more forgivable.

If this is the mindset of the men who are competing to lead this country, then China doesn't need missiles to annex Taiwan: All it needs is patience.

Does the US have a coherent China policy?
　

By Sushil Seth
Friday, Jan 25, 2008, Page 8

WHAT EXACTLY is the US' China policy, if there is one? A dissection of recent statements by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates doesn't leave one any the wiser.

Take the case of Taiwan, for instance. In her statement at a news conference, Rice sharply criticized Taiwan for its impending referendum to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan," calling it "a provocative policy."

"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage," she said.

In a different context, Gates said at a Pentagon news conference, referring to his recent China visit and his talks in Beijing with his hosts, that "as long as they [Beijing] continued to build up their forces on their side of the Taiwan Strait, we would continue to give Taiwan the resources necessary to defend itself."

He said China's explanation that the recent cancelation of port visits by US warships to Hong Kong was linked to sales of US arms to Taiwan without prior notification to Beijing was "specious."

China's abrupt cancelation of a Thanksgiving visit to Hong Kong by the carrier Kitty Hawk and refusal to grant minesweepers shelter from a storm had rattled the Pentagon and senior naval officers.

From the US point of view it was obviously not a friendly act, but Washington these days goes out of its way to put a positive spin on anything China does. Gates said that this incident, as well as China's earlier test of an anti-satellite weapon, were possibly indications of "a disconnect within the Chinese government."

Was Gates really serious about this? Decisions to test an anti-satellite weapon or deny port visits are not spur of the moment acts. These usually have to go through layers of high level decision-making and can hardly be attributed to a political-military disconnect.

Washington is obviously not happy but, at the same time, keen to contain any serious damage to its relations with China.

Gates himself has said: "I don't consider China an enemy and I think there are opportunities for continued cooperation in a number of areas."

In Washington's delicate China diplomacy, Taiwan tends to get the rap now and then as with Rice's sharp rebuke. But it is not all negative for Taipei.

It can take comfort from Gates' reaffirmation of US resolve to help Taiwan defend itself against a Chinese attack.

He said in his news conference that: "In those conversations [with Chinese leaders during his November visit], they raised at various levels our arms sales to Taiwan, and I was very explicit that our arms sales were consistent" with US law and diplomatic commitments.

The point, though, is that unless Taiwan reinforces its identity in national and international terms, it will be absorbed by China in due course of time.

The referendum on UN admission might not produce immediate results in terms of membership, but it would pronounce Taiwan's determination to exercise its sovereign right to pursue its international interests. And it might make it difficult for China to claim responsibility for Taiwan.

It would also make it difficult for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) successor to make deals with China to impose a Hong Kong-style model on Taiwan over a period of time.

Chen might be painted in China and, sometimes, in the US as a dangerous provocateur, but there is certainly a method to what he would like to achieve to solidify Taiwan's sovereign identity -- notwithstanding his unpopularity as demonstrated in legislative elections.

And one has to hand it to him that, even at this point in his political life, he is daring to go against all sorts of pressures from within and outside the country, particularly from the US.

Taiwan is at a very vulnerable point in its history. For the first time there are strong internal political forces, such as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), that are keen to work out solutions with China that will compromise Taiwan's sovereign status.

There is no ambiguity about what China wants. Beijing has offered talks now and then, but based on its "one China" policy. Under this scenario, it is only a question of when Taiwan will become part of China.

By advocating a referendum on UN membership, Chen is seeking to involve Taiwanese in the future of their country. This is their democratic right.

It is not just that some in Taiwan's polity appear sympathetic to Beijing's overtures; China has also made great inroads into Taiwan's business establishment, which is attracted by that county's vast internal market and low-cost manufacturing.

Chen is apparently making a last ditch effort to rally Taiwanese to put a brake on the unseemly haste with which important figures in Taiwan's political and business establishment are courting China.

Why the US should oppose a referendum in Taiwan when seeking to promote democracy in the world is baffling to say the least.

Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.