There are few things that the conservative-libertarian Cato Institute (www.cato.org) and the right-wing editors of the online-only Frontpage Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com) could ever be expected to find agreement on with Alexander Cockburn and the leftist magazine Counterpunch (www.counterpunch.org) he co-edits. Indeed, more reliable opposite opinions on pretty much any political issue would be hard to find.
Yet curious about the specific remarks George Bush made in Japan during his recent Asian trip—contrasting Taiwan’s political freedoms with mainland China’s continued authoritarian repression—I googled “Bush” and “Taiwan” in search of a transcript. I found what I was looking for, but in the process also discovered three articles, one on each of the above sites, with remarkably similar viewpoints. They each charged the Bush Administration with hypocrisy for claiming to be promoting democracy and freedom around the world as a universal good, while simultaneously accepting the People’s Republic of China’s claim that Taiwan—an island off the coast of China that has had de facto independence for over 50 years and has, since the lifting of a 40 year long period of Martial Law in 1987, become one of the freest in Asia—is but a “renegade” province that must at some point rejoin China, as well as doing little in response to China’s threats of armed response if Taiwan makes any moves towards asserting its right to self-determination and independence (even passing an Anti-Secession bill earlier this year that explicitly demands a military response to prevent such a thing from happening).
Taiwan was ruled by the Kuomintang (KMT) Party for nearly fifty years, but since 2000 Chen Shue-bian of the pro-independence Democratic People’s Party (DPP) has been President leading to ever greater friction with China. During the 1996 Presidential election, China, fearing the example set by a freely contested democratic election, test-fired missiles in the Taiwan Strait to try to intimidate the Taiwanese people. Then President Bill Clinton responded by sending in the largest U.S. naval deployment since the Vietnam War—two full carrier groups—to get China to back off. It did, and has since chosen to use subtler ways of coercion against Taiwan.
In 2004 Chen, running for re-election, proposed a referendum on two issues concerning Taiwan-China relations (The two questions were: (1) The People of Taiwan demand that the Taiwan Strait issue be resolved through peaceful means. Should Mainland China refuse to withdraw the missiles it has targeted at Taiwan and to openly renounce the use of force against us, would you agree that the Government should acquire more advanced anti-missile weapons to strengthen Taiwan's self-defense capabilities?
(2) Would you agree that our Government should engage in negotiation with Mainland China on the establishment of a "peace and stability" framework for cross-strait interactions in order to build consensus and for the welfare of the peoples on both sides? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROC_referendum,_2004). Neither concerned outright independence, but instead dealt with how Taiwan should react to China’s threats and state of general belligerence having as it does hundreds of ballistic missiles aimed at the island—a most reasonable and responsible action by any democratically elected government. While standing beside Wen Jiabao, China’s then new leader, on his trip to Washington in late 2003, however, Bush warned Chen against having the referendum and of otherwise upsetting the status quo. As Dave Lindorff writes in Counterpunch, “Referendums, it seems, are appropriate for Californians, not for Taiwanese or Chinese” (“Bush Sells Out Another Democracy Movement: Hypocrisy on Taiwan,” http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01032004.html).The referendum questions won wide margins of approval among those who voted, but, at least partly because of a boycott promoted by the KMT opposition (made up largely of those mainland Chinese who fled to Taiwan in 1949 at the end of the Chinese Civil War and who prefer conciliation and eventual unification with the mainland), less than %50 of the population voted thus preventing the results from being legally binding.
Ted Galen Carpenter rightly argues in his Cato Institute article that:
[This] is no way for Washington to treat another democracy. It is unsavory for the United States to criticize a democratic polity for choosing to hold a referendum on a policy issue-however sensitive that issue might be. It is even worse to criticize such a basic exercise of democracy, as Bush did, while saying nothing about the PRC's [People’s Republic of China] destabilizing and provocative deployment of missiles across the Taiwan Strait (“President Bush's Taiwan Policy: Immoral and Dangerous,” http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-31-04.html).
In his Frontpage Magazine article, Don Feder reminds us that shortly after his Presidential election in 2001, Bush “said in a television interview that America had an obligation to do ‘whatever it took’ to help Taiwan defend itself” (“Bush’s New Taiwan Doctrine,” http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ ReadArticle.asp?ID=11285 ). Not long after, his Administration approved the largest sale of arms to Taiwan in a decade (though the KMT-opposition controlled Congress has consistently blocked the approval of the deal from Taiwan’s side ever since). This seemingly showed his Administration’s resolve to continue the policy of “strategic ambiguity”—accepting the “One China” policy that Beijing insists upon yet at the same time helping to defend Taiwan diplomatically and militarily from any use of force by China—that has defined U.S.-China relations since the U.S. switched its diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China (communist mainland China) in 1979. That same year the Taiwan Relations Act was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by then President Jimmy Carter that states:
…that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means…to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States…to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character, and…to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan (Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/ustw/geninfo/tra1979.htm).
So what explains Bush’s shift away from this position of assertively defending Taiwan’s interests—those of a free and democratic “country” in sharp contrast to the continued authoritarian dictatorship and political repression of mainland China—to rebuking its government for daring to hold a referendum on relations with its threatening neighbor? All three articles agree that it largely has to do with the continuing crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapon program and the Bush Administration’s felt need to get China, as the only country seemingly able to, to put pressure on its government to rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it withdrew from in 2003.
While acknowledging the exigencies of international relations realpolitik Bush’s blanket appeasement of China’s bellicosity towards Taiwan is of little value – because China itself is not happy with N. Korea’s nuclear program and would not dare to attack Taiwan while there is still such a gulf between its military capabilities and the USA’s; especially before it hosts the 2008 Summer Olympic Games – and only shows Bush’s supposed promotion of democracy and freedom to be the feigned words of a moral hypocrite.
Since the lifting of Martial Law Taiwan’s democracy has taken root with a number of parties representing a range of opinion now taking part in a vibrant political process. This is in marked contrast to the continuing repression of the non-democratic, authoritarian Chinese government that still holds thousands of political prisoners in slave labor-like conditions where torture is commonly used. Of course with the mountain of evidence that has come out over the last couple of years detailing, despite the Bush Administration’s repeated denials of the appropriateness of the term, the use of torture by American military and intelligence personnel in apparent agreement with directives coming from as high up as the White House itself the United-States, at least under this Administration, has largely lost the moral authority to even speak out against China’s use of torture. The fiscal recklessness of the Bush Administration, and that of the Republicans controlling Congress, has also brought about a situation in which the health of the U.S. economy is now so massively dependent on the continued purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds by East Asian countries – China primarily (though Japan, Taiwan and S. Korea are not far behind) – that if China were to “blink” and stop, or even just slow down, their bond purchases the U.S. Federal Reserve would be forced to raise interest rates, possibly precipitously, in order to finance its debt almost certainly driving the U.S. economy into recession. Though it would not be in the self-interest of the Chinese government to do this, given that its exports to the U.S. are the primary fuel for the economic growth necessary to placate the already disgruntled teaming masses of citizens that would undoubtedly suffer, a conflict over Taiwan could very well convince them otherwise. That the Bush Administration would allow China to have such a leverage over the U.S. economy while squandering America’s moral authority in speaking out against its systemic human rights abuses are but two of the reasons why Bush should not have been re-elected.
He was, however, and though in his speech in Japan before visiting China he mentioned the freedoms of Taiwan as an example of the direction Beijing should move towards, his irresponsibility on other aspects of U.S.-China relations can only make people wonder how serious he actually is about helping to maintain Taiwan’s independence.
2 comments:
You know I am always wondering that how much time you spent finishing such long article....really awesome!
China has a historical tradition as being a powerful warring state, unifying itself and placing neighboring countries under its rule by use of force and holding sway over Southeast Asia. But any state of hegemony ever built in China by mainlanders had exhibited little interest in the seas. Today, China fully aware that, it cannot achieve hegemony in East Asia unless it has naval supremacy. Beijing leadership enacted in 1992 a territorial waters law, defining a large portion of the East China Sea and the South China Sea that surrounded by the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Taiwan and China, as Chinese territory unilaterally.
If China annexed Taiwan, it would be able to practically dominate the East China Sea and the South China Sea and to make Southeast Asian countries around the South China Sea virtually its dependencies. It could get a hold of Japan’s lifeline which constitutes the South China Sea coastline along Taiwan’s coast all the way to the Indian Ocean. Hence, it could place a direct threat on Japan, the most advancing country in the South East Asia, as well as on the rest Southeast Asian countries. Imagine, if China grows strong enough to incorporate Taiwan and make Japan its dependency, how it would bring a great change to the balancing of the power today?
This is not a mere wild fancy. In today's world, supposedly no country will invade a poor, over-populated, poverty-stricken country like China. Nevertheless, China is actually hell-bent on its military buildup, obviously for political reasons. China, in the past 10 to 15 years, became the hottest market in the world, and has a stunning economic growth. However, this growth is not the result of its own effort but of dependence on foreign capital and technology. There is no guarantee to China’s future economic prosperity as the capital could move fast to sources of more profitable investment. Certainly the Chinese economy has grown, but the gap between rich and poor is ever widening, adding more frustration to the majority of the Chinese population. Beijing, instead of spending money on helping its people, given priority to reinforcing weapons and expanding its military buildup.
Say China is strong enough to invade Taiwan today, but if Taiwan continues to resist, and if the U.S. steps in to help defending the island, China will not only hurt a lot, possibly their economy will collapse first subject to international sanctions and the like.
Beijing’s current strategy is to crush the Taiwanese’s spirit of resistance with military intimidation, forcing Taiwan to acknowledge that it is a part of China. If Taiwan yields to such pressure, neither the U.S. nor the international community could and would involve itself in the Taiwan issue. Letting the Chinese troops be stationed in Taiwan as in the case of Hong Kong, amounts to the Chinese occupation of Taiwan. As someone from Hong Kong said in this one interview, China allows some level of freedom to Hong Kong only in an attempt to have Taiwan accept the "one China, two systems" principle, but once China has occupied Taiwan, it will not of that consideration anymore.
The reason China has not given up its territorial ambition for Taiwan is because the unstable political status of Taiwan. Comparing Taiwan and Philippines, the Philippines, a neighboring country to Taiwan on the seacoast, is far inferior to Taiwan economically and militarily. Say if China takes the Philippines, it could establish hegemony in the East Asia with the South China Sea under its rule, just as in the case of annexation of Taiwan. Could China threaten to use force against the Philippines if it doesn’t accept China’s call for unification? No, because it is strictly forbidden by international law for any nation to threaten or use force against any other country, as the U.N. Charter clearly lays down that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Nevertheless, Beijing has been continuing threatening to use force against Taiwan unless we comply with its call. In March this year, Beijing enacted an “anti-secession law,” authorizing military intervention to reunify Taiwan if Taiwan declares formal independence. I believe, if any other country of the world should commit this sort of illegal act, it would be seriously criticized by the international community and punished with international sanction. Yet, how come the international community has acquiesced in the Chinese threat so long as Taiwan is concerned?
If the international community recognized Taiwan as a sovereign state like other countries, such Chinese behavior toward Taiwan could not be justified.
The position the People's Republic of China has made to the world is that “Only one China exists in the world. It is the People's Republic. Taiwan is a part of the mainland, and therefore, its separate independence is intolerable.” In actual fact, however, the Chinese Communists have never ruled and are not ruling Taiwan now. Considering this, it is irrational for Beijing to use such terms as “Taiwan's separation and independence from China.” China, however, claims that “The question regarding Taiwan is a legacy of civil war in China. The Republic of China has already ceased to exist, but the remnants of the Nationalist (KMT today) insurgents have continued occupying Taiwan and resisting Beijing. Viewed in this light, the reunification of Taiwan is China's domestic problem.”
It appears that the Kuomintang's (KMT) retreat to Taiwan after loosing to the Chinese Communists in civil war brought conflict to Taiwan today. But we the Taiwanese never fought the Chinese Communists; we were never a part of the Nationalist Republic either.
Many countries even many today’s Taiwanese do not aware that, Taiwan was never “officially” a territory of China. It was, for a short period of time in the Chin Dynasty when the Manchus ruled China. During the first Sino Japanese war, Taiwan was ceded to Japan as a result of a peace treaty. After Japan defeated in WWII, it gave up the right over its colony, there was, however, no "official" statement or appointment saying to which country the territory of Taiwan should belong to. According to the international law, and base on the right of self-determination, Taiwan has the right to decide its own destiny, to determine itself as an independent sovereign state. (The "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples," adopted by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1514 in 1960, states: "All people have the right of self-determination, and by the exercise of this right, they have the freedom of determining their own political status and pursuing their economic, social and cultural development." This could mean that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to determine the political status, i.e., legal status, of their island, based on their right of self-determination. ) Today, Taiwan has its people and territory indispensable to a sovereign state and the government that rules it. Taiwan ranks high in the world in terms of population and economic strength, it is a free, democratic country with sufficient territory of its own. For all this, we still remain unrecognized by the international community as a sovereign state. Perhaps it is because Taiwan still calls itself the Republic of China.
After the end of WWII, the Republic of China (the KMT government), as one of the victorious Allies, occupied Taiwan under U.S.'s appointment. (However, the “status” of Taiwan was not “appointed” to ROC) Taiwan, as a colony of Japan and under Japan’s 50 years of ruling, was a law-biding island far more advancing than ROC at that time. Should the U.S. know a little more about Taiwan at that time, maybe it would not encourage the KMT to take Taiwan. The ROC's regime led by absolute dictator Chiang Kai-shek treated Taiwan as a spoil of war, took over people's property, forced the use of the Chinese Mandarin (which was different from the island's native tongue) and ruling the "original Taiwanese" with terrorism. The U.S., fully aware the terrorism KMT imposed on Taiwan, did not take any action about it. After the Feb 28th incident happened, KMT enacted Martial Law in Taiwan until 1998 when the democratization of Taiwan was pushed ahead under the leadership of President Lee. The freedom of Taiwan is yet to be endorsed by law, because even now, the Chinese Republic's constitution is still in effect. Initially, this constitution was proclaimed on the mainland China in 1947 to apply to all of China and Mongolia, but NOT TO TAIWAN, which the ROC was occupying as its last hold out. After the Communists overturned that Nationalist in 1949, it created the PRC (People's Republic of China) and claimed that the PRC is the only official China, ROC (Republic of China) was no longer existed. The ROC, after defeated to the civil war, settled in Taiwan. Taiwanese was imposed forcibly under the Chinese Republic's constitution, a constitution made not including the territory of Taiwan. This is what it “link” Taiwan to China today, and what it becoming the excuse China claimed that Taiwan belongs to China.
Under the democratization of Taiwan, the KMT lost many of their vested rights under former President Lee and later, President Chen. Today, the first and foremost objective of KMT and PFP (Lien Chan and James Soong), is to win back the rein of government. But they need Beijing's cooperation in doing so, with Taiwan's people growing more and more conscious of our own identity as Taiwanese. On the other hand, Beijing is also in need of the pro-reunification faction's collaboration in annexing Taiwan. This common interest makes Beijing and the Pro-unification factions in Taiwan joined hands. While Beijing intimidating Taiwan's people with the use of military force anytime if Taiwan moves toward formal independence, on the other hand, welcomed pro-reunification Lien Chen and James Soong to the mainland as state guests, pledge not using force against Taiwan if it acknowledges the “One China” principle and accept the concept that the island as part of China.
In year 2003, President Chen came up pledging to "establish a new constitution in 2006 by popular vote and enforce it in 2008". The pro-reunification politicians however pledge as "setting the timetable for Taiwanese independence and representing a dangerous policy of inviting military assault from the mainland China". Likewise, Beijing blustered, "We will deter Taiwan's independence at all costs". On December 9th of the same year, President Bush in his meeting with the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said that he is opposed to any unilateral decision by either Beijing or Taipei to change the status quo and that he is also opposed to the Taiwanese leader's recent remarks favoring a change in the status quo. The U.S. exerts a much larger influence on Taiwan than China. Washington has hampered Taiwan's democratization in response to Beijing's demand, because the U.S. needs Chinese collaboration in the settlement of the North Korea question. The Bush Administration’s policy on Taiwan shock the Taiwanese people, put us in doubt and worries that the U.S. may not come to Taiwan's rescue in the event of military attach from China. People of Taiwan, who are always under Beijing's threat, cannot help but to react sensitively to every move Washington makes because they are fully aware of the indispensability of U.S. collaboration to the defense of our island.
President Bush, in his second inaugural address, appealed to the whole world:
"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institution in every national and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
In his Feb. 2 State of the Union Message to Congress, also encouraged people tormented by despotic terrorism to fight for freedom, emphasizing "The most important of freedoms is the freedom from fear."
What is odd is that in Taiwan, the democratization movement is facing a serious predicament, its acceleration deterred under Washington's pressure.
The U.S. is opposed to Taiwan trying to change the status quo include establishing a Taiwanese constitution and changing the national name. U.S. opposition to Taiwan establishing a new constitution has thrown Taiwan into political limbo. The Bush Administration, which clamors for global democratization, has followed a policy of preventing the legal democratization of Taiwan, retaining, instead, the potential for a future conflict.
In such circumstances the pro-democracy influences on the island have been torn by dire confusion. Say if the pro-reunification factions winning the 2008 presidential elections, and if it grabs the helms of state and recognize that “China is one, and Taiwan is a part of China." Beijing's scenario for the annexation of Taiwan will come about, putting Taiwan's survival at stake. This will not only be a crisis to Taiwan itself however, a global crisis that could jeopardize peace in the Asia-Pacific region.
The democratization of Taiwan cannot be fully accomplished on a legal basis unless Taiwan we establish a constitution of our own.
A constitution of our own that has nothing to do with the mainland and that restricts Taiwan’s territory to the island proper and its offshore islands. Only if US issue a statement that it support Taiwan’s people in securing their own freedom, to forge ahead with democratization and to support Taiwan on establishing a constitution of its own, and if the world incorporate Taiwan into the international security system, welcome Taiwan like any other national, to be a member of the international community. Only until we attain “real” statehood should we accomplish the true democratization, that we would live in the true freedom without fear.
Finally, thank you for sharing your blog, I am glad to read an opinion from an North-American’s point of view. Your blog gave me the chance to think and read a lot again about the Taiwan-China issue, it inspired me to write this article about Taiwan’s history (still working on it), I just wish more people outside or inside Taiwan to know about our history, and how we got into this conflict today.
Post a Comment