Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.This is simply a codification of the existing status quo, which Taiwan has been doing more to undermine than has China.
The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
The "deal" Mr. Turton claims does not exist is the quid pro quo known as "strategic ambiguity" by which the US has controlled and smoothed problems between China and Taiwan: Taiwan will not seek or move towards de jure independence and China will not seek to forcefully reunite with Taiwan. This deal is an absolutely critical part of US-China relations, and without it, the US would not be willing to support Taiwan. China is simply too important to the US, both economically and strategically, to allow the Taiwan question to scuttle US-Sino relations. It will never be allowed to happen. If the US is forced to choose between protecting Taiwan and good relations with China, Taipei has no chance. Only this non-existent deal has kept Taiwan safe and indepdent in a de facto sense.
Mr. Turton castigates the Chinese for crying to the US to restrain Taiwan in this instance, writing that "It's a might hypocritical for China to yammer for three decades that the US is interfering, and then suddenly ask the US to interfere." This is not hypocritical at all. China has accepted the concept of "strategic ambiguity" and has allowed the US to shore up Taiwan, so long as there are no moves towards independence. Abolishing the Council, even if only symbolic, represents such a move.
Make no mistake. China will use force to prevent Taiwan from obtaining formal sovereign indepdence. It may be true that China does not have a sufficient amphibious force projection capability to invade, but China does have a large long-range strike force, in missiles and airplanes.
Mr. Turton further complains that "There isn't any balance anymore. China now has military ascendancy over Taiwan, and the US has been tilting toward China for the last twenty years. The "ambiguity" that you refer to in your second paragraph has been replaced by a veiled agreement that China can annex Taiwan, an island no ethnic Chinese emperor ever owned. The US simply says it cannot do so by force. At the moment, the US position, weirdly, is that it is willing to go war to prevent violent annexation." All of this is true, except for the implication that this is anything new. China has always enjoyed military dominance over Taiwan, and the US has long supported the policy of "strategic ambiguity" to manage Sino-Taiwanese relations.
Taiwanese independence is a fact that China cannot undo by diplomacy, unless Taiwan consents. The longer Taiwan exists, the harder that fact becomes. And as the Chinese leaderhip ages and moderates itself, the more chance there is that, somewhere in the future, China will allow, to some degree, Taiwanese legal sovereignty. By rocking the boat now, Taiwan is compromising any chances it may have in the future.
Turton concludes by claiming that "It is both curious and sad that you regard Taiwan, the victim in this case, and the last legacy of the Great Game of the 19th century, as the cause of the problem. Independence and democracy are not threats to anyone. Rather, people who make threats and point missiles are the problem." True. Politics is a nasty business. I would wager that all US presidents would prefer to support a democratic Taiwan instead of a communist China. But political reality dicates the opposite behavior.
Finally, if Taiwan so desperately wants independence and formal de jure sovereignty, there is nothing that US or China can do to stop Taiwan from declaring a split with China. So why doesn't Taiwan make such a move? Because it can't survive without US support. If Taiwan can't maintain its independence without the US, then Taiwan needs to do what the US asks of it. America will not, and should not, come to Taiwan's aid if it provokes a Chinese attack.
Posts
1 comment:
Michael Turton's comment to my post about China and Taiwan deserves a direct response. First, Mr. Turton grossly mischaracterizes the Anti-Secession Law passed by China in early 2005. Yes, the law does raise the possibility of using force to retake Taiwan, but only if Taiwan continues to move towards independence.
C'mon. There is no action that Taiwan could take except capitulation that is not "movement toward independence" in Chinese eyes. In Chinese interpretation, even joining the WHO to fight SARS is movement toward independence. Codification of violent annexation of Taiwan is inherent in the Anti-Succession law. Note that there is no definition given of what would constitute movement toward independence, meaning that there is no issue that China could not claim is a violation of the ASL. The whole thing is a clear formal codification of China's intent to take Taiwan by force, and so is the missile buildup and military buildup -- facts referenced by Chen in his defense of his move. To narrowly interpret it the way you do is to completely ignore its political implications.
In other words, you could talk about the ASL as you do here, divorced from the context of murderous motives. But to do so you have to drop my other point -- which you did -- that the missiles and military indicate China's intentions. It is the troika of military build-up, terror weapons, and the ASL that demonstrates China's intent clearly.
Again, Chen broke no promise. We can debate his political wisdom -- I wasn't happy about it either, though for slightly different reasons than you -- but clearly he broke no promises.
The "deal" Mr. Turton claims does not exist is the quid pro quo known as "strategic ambiguity" by which the US has controlled and smoothed problems between China and Taiwan: Taiwan will not seek or move towards de jure independence and China will not seek to forcefully reunite with Taiwan. This deal is an absolutely critical part of US-China relations, and without it, the US would not be willing to support Taiwan. China is simply too important to the US, both economically and strategically, to allow the Taiwan question to scuttle US-Sino relations. It will never be allowed to happen. If the US is forced to choose between protecting Taiwan and good relations with China, Taipei has no chance. Only this non-existent deal has kept Taiwan safe and indepdent in a de facto sense.
This "deal" (a term you apparently mean to stand for "understanding') existed only because China was too weak to force an end to it. Those days are now over. That "deal" is finished, and the US position now strongly tilts toward China. That is an error that will probably incite a war.
Mr. Turton castigates the Chinese for crying to the US to restrain Taiwan in this instance, writing that "It's a might hypocritical for China to yammer for three decades that the US is interfering, and then suddenly ask the US to interfere." This is not hypocritical at all. China has accepted the concept of "strategic ambiguity" and has allowed the US to shore up Taiwan, so long as there are no moves towards independence. Abolishing the Council, even if only symbolic, represents such a move.
You do realize that when the council was first erected by authoritarian fiat in 1991, Beijing bitched about it as an impediment to annexation. Now when Chen gets rid of it, it's a pro-independence move. Start a council, it is a provocation, end it, it is a provocation. Realpolitik logic at its finest.
You evaded the point -- it is pure hypocrisy to argue that Taiwan is an internal affair of China, and block it from entering the UN, and the appeal to the US and the UN to rein Chen in. See the problem there? It was obvious to all us Taiwan-watchers.
China has not "allowed" the US to shore up Taiwan -- it never had the power to stop it. It now does, given its importance to the US economy and its rising military might.
Make no mistake. China will use force to prevent Taiwan from obtaining formal sovereign indepdence. It may be true that China does not have a sufficient amphibious force projection capability to invade, but China does have a large long-range strike force, in missiles and airplanes.
Oh yes, I totally agree.
Mr. Turton further complains that "There isn't any balance anymore. China now has military ascendancy over Taiwan, and the US has been tilting toward China for the last twenty years. The "ambiguity" that you refer to in your second paragraph has been replaced by a veiled agreement that China can annex Taiwan, an island no ethnic Chinese emperor ever owned. The US simply says it cannot do so by force. At the moment, the US position, weirdly, is that it is willing to go war to prevent violent annexation." All of this is true, except for the implication that this is anything new. China has always enjoyed military dominance over Taiwan, and the US has long supported the policy of "strategic ambiguity" to manage Sino-Taiwanese relations.
Actually, China has not enjoyed military dominance over Taiwan at any time in the last several decades. It is only with the acquisition of advanced Su-27 and -30 fighters from Russia in the 1990s, and the modernization programs that have been carried out, that its military has begun to acquire the kind of power (and economic base) it needs to take the island.
Taiwanese independence is a fact that China cannot undo by diplomacy, unless Taiwan consents.
Taiwan is not independent. It is merely not a satrapy of Beijing. No one owns Taiwan, which is not the same as saying that it is formally independent. This distinction is not lost on those of us who are threatened by SARS and bird flu, or who have to go through convoluted evolutions to get a visa, etc. Taiwan's lack of independence creates concrete problems for the island.
The longer Taiwan exists, the harder that fact becomes. And as the Chinese leaderhip ages and moderates itself, the more chance there is that, somewhere in the future, China will allow, to some degree, Taiwanese legal sovereignty.
Unfortunately there is no sign of moderation out of Beijing. In fact, all signs are opposite -- the crackdowns on dissidents are as bad or worse than ever, the Anti-Succession Law is certainly not a sign of moderation, and neither are the missiles -- growing by 100 each year -- a sign of moderation. Nor are the clashes with Japan over oil and gas. Your description is of a China that does not exist
By rocking the boat now, Taiwan is compromising any chances it may have in the future.
I agree that Taiwan is playing for time, a position that I have always argued for. But part of "playing for time" means establishing Taiwan as an independent entity and asserting that independence in the face of constant pressure from Beijing. Chen didn't "rock the boat" by abolishing a $30 budget item. He "rocked the boat" by floating the idea without informing anyone beforehand, including his own Foreign Ministry. That was a massive eff-up. What happened? Well, China bitched (and called the KMT to complain to them about not stopping this!!), and the US sent people to Taiwan, and now, after waaaaay overreacting at first, it has serenely determined that it has no problem with the issue. I am not convinced that a stronger reaction from China is not forthcoming, but so far I have to admit that Chen won this one.
Getting back to the playing for time problem, another issue that has emerged is that the KMT and its sister party, the PFP, are both coordinating policy with Beijing, which they now serve. Should the KMT win in '08, which it looks to do now, Taiwan might not have much of an independent future. There's more urgency than you realize here.
Turton concludes by claiming that "It is both curious and sad that you regard Taiwan, the victim in this case, and the last legacy of the Great Game of the 19th century, as the cause of the problem. Independence and democracy are not threats to anyone. Rather, people who make threats and point missiles are the problem." True. Politics is a nasty business. I would wager that all US presidents would prefer to support a democratic Taiwan instead of a communist China. But political reality dicates the opposite behavior.
ROFL. The "real men do realpolitik" argument has a wonderful naivete to it -- if we are only shits enough, everything will be OK. The whole problem with that attitude is that supporting the wrong side has consistently led us into foreign policy disaster. The massive flaw in the "real men do realpolitik" mode is that it builds nothing for the future. Instead, it makes sure that the future is one long experience of cleaning up for the failures of the past.
Here the problem with the "real men do realpolitik" attitude are particularly grim: because the US has tilted toward China as per your arguments above, it has eliminated any ethical rationale for defending Taiwan and any deterrent effect of its policy. Since the US position is more or less be "One China" + "We don't support independence" -- realpolitik at its finest -- the US has advanced no legitimate basis to intervene in a war between China and Taiwan. Had we stated forthrightly that democracy was a thing worth defending, that our policy was to have no position on Taiwan independence, and that we "acknowledge" the Chinese position -- the original language of the Shanghai communique -- we might have a basis for US and even international intervention. But at the moment we are on thin legitimacy ground (Iraq too has completely devastated our ability to take the moral high ground) and Europe is cooperating with China. There is no reason, given the US position, that China could not idignantly argue that the US has essentially conceded that Taiwan is a province in a state of rebellion, and thus it has every right to intervene. What then could the US say? Not only has realpolitik destroyed our legitimacy to intervene, it has also reduced the deterrant effect of our ambiguity. Nice move, guys.
The "real men do realpolitik" position is both unethical and unpragmatic. It builds nothing for the future, it is merely a succession of sales of ourselves to whatever nation we happend to need at the moment, a rag in the wind, anyone's to grab.
Finally, if Taiwan so desperately wants independence and formal de jure sovereignty, there is nothing that US or China can do to stop Taiwan from declaring a split with China. So why doesn't Taiwan make such a move? Because it can't survive without US support.
Yes. Because China has promised to maim and kill Taiwanese if they desire to live in a democratic state.
Fortunately the problem of Chinese expansionism has begun to dawn on Japan, and that nation has begun a debate on how to regard Taiwan in its security interests. And it looks like the results may be positive for those of us who live under Chinese hatred and Chinese missiles, and who have to deal with a chattering class that has confused cynicism with pragmatism.
Michael
Post a Comment