THE END OF THE SINO-AMERICAN HONEYMOON?


Download PDF Version


By Willy Lam


The post-September 11 Sino-American rapprochement, based on the two countries' "partnership" in fighting global terrorism, appears to be in danger of rupture – at least from the perspective of the administration of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. According to Chinese diplomatic sources in Beijing, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'s Leading Group on Foreign Affairs (LGFA), the country's highest diplomatic decision-making organ, has come up with this latest assessment of the United States: "an untrustworthy, duplicitous superpower."

According to the sources, the significant decline in Beijing's appraisal of the George W. Bush administration is largely based on the CCP leadership's conviction that the White House has gone back on its word with regard to reining in the pro-independence gambit of Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian. As Beijing sees it, a kind of quid pro quo was obtained between the two major countries since the September 11 attacks. Thus, China has largely acquiesced in U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq – and Beijing has played a sizeable role in putting pressure on North Korea to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In return, Washington was supposed to exert influence on Taipei to desist from seeking "creeping independence."

Washington did put considerable effort early this year toward dissuading President Chen from holding referendums to seek independence; and it was partly due to U.S. pressure that the Taiwan leader pledged last month that the forthcoming constitutional revision would not involve sovereignty matters. Since Chen's problematic re-election victory last March, however, the CCP leadership is increasingly alarmed by signs of "duplicity" on the part of Washington. People's Liberation Army (PLA) generals are particularly concerned about the U.S. continuing to provide military and other support to Taipei.

Signs of "collusion" between Washington and Taipei seem aplenty. President Bush earlier this month signed a bill authorizing Secretary of State Colin Powell to help facilitate Taiwan's gaining observer status in the World Health Assembly. Beijing is even more incensed by evidence of growing U.S.-Taiwan military ties. A senior Taiwan delegation led by the powerful head of the Legislative Yuan, Wang Jin-pyng, came to the U.S. this past week to look at possible procurement of anti-missile Patriot batteries, submarine-hunting jet fighters, as well as submarines. Earlier this month, the Taiwan cabinet approved a special budget of NT$610 billion (about US$18.2 billion) for the purchase of top-of-the line American weaponry. And a senior Pentagon general, John Allen, is due in Taipei next month to help get the Taiwan defense forces up to speed.

Washington has insisted that under the Taiwan Relations Act – which Beijing has repeatedly criticized for violating the One China principle – the U.S. has the right to help Taiwan defend itself. And the just-released Pentagon assessment of Chinese military strength said the PLA was stockpiling record numbers of missiles along the coast to intimidate the island. Beijing, however, has maintained that, in the words of an official Xinhua news agency commentary last week, Washington has "exaggerated China's military capacity so as to provide [itself] with a pretext for selling weapons to Taiwan."

Beijing is particularly worried about what it considers to be signs that hard-line elements in the Bush administration are conniving at, if not helping Taiwan prepare its "Scorpion Strategy," President Chen's counter-attack plan should the PLA attack Taiwan. For example, Taipei would lob missiles at not only big cities, such as Shanghai, but also major infrastructure, such as the multi-billion yuan Three Gorges Dam. Significantly, while PLA officers remained largely quiet in the lead up to the Taiwan presidential polls last March, they have of late given several angry interviews to the official Chinese media. For example, General Liu Yuan, son of the late state chairman Liu Shaoqi, responded to Taipei's alleged plans to bomb the Three Gorges Dam by telling the China Youth Daily that an air strike by Taiwan "will provoke a retaliation [against Taiwan] that will ‘blot out the sky and cover up the earth'."

Party cadres and academics have cited other pieces of evidence of Washington stepping up its time-honored "anti-China encirclement and containment policy." The CCP leadership seems convinced that Washington is backing the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong with the ulterior motive of turning the special administrative region into a "beachhead" for speeding up the "peaceful evolution" of China. The official media has condemned as "provocative" a series of naval and air force war games that the U.S. will hold next month with Japan, South Korea and other American allies not far from the Taiwan Strait. As a CCTV commentator pointed out last week, the fact that seven U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups will be holding maneuvers in the Pacific "produces a particularly strong impact on one's nerves."

Chinese strategists have written much about the fact that September 11 represented a turning point in recent Sino-U.S. history because from that point onwards, the global anti-American terrorist movement replaced China as Washington's real (or potential) enemy number one. And it is the services that Beijing has rendered as a partner in Washington's worldwide anti-terrorist campaign that prompted Secretary Powell to make his now-famous remark late last year that "U.S. relations with China are the best" since President Richard Nixon's ice-breaking visit to Beijing in 1972.

Until Washington's perceived about-face on Taiwan, Beijing was convinced that the Bush administration, with its forces bogged down in Iraq – and with little leverage with the Kim Jong-Il regime – would to a considerable extent be susceptible to Chinese pressure on the Taiwan front. Yet, according to Western diplomats in Beijing and Washington, the CCP leadership may have overplayed its hand.

Firstly, while the separatist steps taken by President Chen and his colleagues in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) genuinely concern Washington, it is also alarmed by aggressive moves that the PLA has adopted – or threatens to adopt – toward Taiwan. These go beyond the relentless stockpiling of missiles in Fujian and Jiangxi Provinces. A number of military hardliners have asked the Hu-Wen leadership to abandon Beijing's well-known pledge that during military conflicts, China will never be the country that uses nuclear bombs first. These hawks have argued that Beijing is justified in deploying nuclear weapons against Taiwan if the latter were to use "terrorist" tactics against the mainland – or if there were evidence to substantiate rumors that Taipei was secretly developing nuclear devices.

Moreover, the Chinese army and navy's recent power projection in the Asia-Pacific region have upset the U.S. and a number of its Asian allies. Much of this has to do with the so-called petroleum imperative, that is, Beijing's perception that China's high-speed economic development in the coming two decades hinges on sufficient supplies of energy and other resources. Despite the Hu-Wen administration's vaunted theory of the "peaceful rise of China," Beijing has taken more assertive steps to stake claims to petroleum reserves in the South China Seas and in disputed areas between China and Japan.

Equally eye-catching has been the CCP leadership's enhanced efforts to enlist the European Union as a partner in its bid to construct a "multi-polar world order," or one shorn of American domination. Diplomatic sources in Beijing said the LGFA had designed 2004 as the "Year of Europe for Chinese diplomacy." One goal is to get the EU to lift is 15-year-old ban on the expert of weapons to China, despite Washington's views that the arms embargo should stay in view of the PLA's aggressive modernization strategies. Three of China's Fourth-Generation leaders – Hu, Wen and parliamentary chief Wu Bangguo have already toured Europe this year – and more visits by top CCP cadres are in the works.

Beijing has also tried to inject new energy and momentum into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a so-called Eastern NATO that groups China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. At a summit meeting of SCO countries in the Uzbek capital of Taskkent this month, President Hu advocated more substantial steps to accomplish "multilateralism as well as the democratization of international relations." These are, of course, well-known code words on the need to counter the Bush administration's "unilateralist" proclivities.

Most significantly, many in Washington are unhappy with Beijing's failure to put real pressure on Pyongyang regarding the dismantling of its nuclear programs. Recently, Chinese officials cast doubts on American claims that Pyongyang has the capacity to build bombs out of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in addition to just plutonium, surprising the White House. The just-released assessment of the congressional oversight body, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, also indicated that "despite China's active role in the Six Party Talks… to date it appears unwilling to use its leverage [on North Korea] in a significant way." The bipartisan commission called on the Bush administration to beef up Taiwan's defense and even to reconsider the "one China policy."

While it is premature to predict whether Sino-U.S. relations are heading toward a downward spiral, bilateral ties remain as fragile as ever – and the good will harnessed by the two countries' somewhat haphazard cooperation in the global campaign against terrorism may not be substantial enough to prevent a return of Cold War-vintage diplomatic thinking in both Beijing and Washington. With the situation in the Taiwan Strait getting tenser by the day, the danger of a dramatic worsening of the traditionally uneasy triangular relationship between Beijing, Washington and Taipei is very real. The fallout from such a deterioration of ties could have grave consequences for war and peace not only in the Taiwan Strait, but throughout the Asia-Pacific Region. INSIDE THIS ISSUE


A PRISONER'S DILEMMA: THE EU'S CHINA ARMS EMBARGO
THE END OF THE SINO-AMERICAN HONEYMOON?
THE RUSSIAN ORIGINS OF CHINA'S REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS
BREAKING THE CYCLE: CHINESE GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC FLUCTUATION


PUBLICATION DETAILS


China Brief: A Journal of Information and Analysis is a publication of The Jamestown Foundation, a private non-profit organization. John Fei is the acting editor of China Brief. Writers include Professor Arthur Waldron, Asia analyst Willy Wo-Lap Lam, Hong Kong commentator Baopu Liu, lawyer-economist Gordon G. Chang and many others. The opinions expressed in China Brief are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Jamestown Foundation.

RECENT ISSUES


Volume 4, Issue 12
(Jun 10, 2004)
A WARMING FRIENDSHIP: PART II OF A TWO PART SERIES ON CHINA, TAIWAN, AND LATIN AMERICA
BEIJING'S HAND IN HONG KONG POLITICS
A HEALTHY CHOICE FOR CHINA: TAIWAN AND THE WHO
THE IMPACT OF 9/11 ON CHINESE REGIONAL SECURITY COOPERATION


Volume 4, Issue 12
(Jun 10, 2004)

Complete Archives >>

I learned by harsh experience to ignor the words of those putting
forward the position of the Red Chinese and to study their actions
instead. They are inscrutable indeed!

[quote="yangalfred";p="57948"]Why would Taiwan media need to foster one China policy?

People of Taiwan aren't naive. They have been living in uncertainty and fear since 1949, with the war with China hanging above their heads. This has created a society where many prefer (and do) leave the country in search of a home more safe and secure. Not many realize that this is in fact a forced migration.

It seems to me that all this discussion has been from China/US perspective, while the position of Taiwanese people has been overlooked. And Taiwanese are well aware of the seriousness of the situation. Many observers forget that the man problem is the division between the Taiwanese themselves: the (children of) mainlanders that fled to Taiwan together with Chiang Kai-shek and who favor reunification with China, and local Chinese who migrated to Taiwan 300 years ago and who feel Taiwan has always been independent. For this group, China is something foreign. The gap between the two groups is still huge, linguistic and cultural, eventhough there are many mixed marriages. The latter group advocates independence but acts responsibly - it didn't make any serious step towards independence. Everyone understands that status quo is the best for Taiwan for now.


Asia-Europe Meeting Forum
www.iias.nl/asem/asemforum

Heh heh heh...that wont matter either way. They need us...it's as simple as that. They need us economically, and they are afraid of us militarily.

It is a mistake to think our military is the only weapon we have. With enough cultural and economic bombardment, we can still turn them into us. We will win either way.

The Tainwanese perspective mirrors the American perspective. If anything, they are even MORE aggressive than we are. The only reason they have not expanded their military further is because the US refuses to sell them more weapons (though we should...it's in both our best interests).

The PRC is a paper tiger. They are NOT the soviets.

I find it interesting as you assume the status quo will constant.
International power varies with time and development.
Technology for example.
The US currently holds a lead in technological development.
That isn't 100% certain continue, it is the most likely occurence but scientific development doesn't always flow to the most developed.
Also the high level of technical sophistication of US military infrastructure makes the US uniquely vunerable in the sense of penetration of secure communication networks.
For example a collapse/disruption of battlefield communications would be far more disasterous to US forces than to there less technoligically advanced opponents.
Now several of you (especially Americans) will laugh at this, but put yourself in Red Teams perspective. You make enemy strenghts weaknesses.
Hackers have proven even the most secure systems can be, at least temporaily, broken into. Which in battlefied circumstances is fatal, misinformation causes mistakes.

Yes US conventional forces are by far the most advanced in the world but look at how difficult it has been to maintain control in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Eventually US taxpayers, claiming government wastage, will reduce their taxes that will weaken US forces in the field.US citizens are patriotic enough to cheer on their troops, just not quite enough to pay their bills.

I often hear the phrase taiwan issue. You see, taiwan don't have an issue. It is mainland china. China has the issue. Since china only has one political party. and how does one political party stay in power. they must motivate their 1.3 billion. And Taiwan is the perfect victim.
Did china use a bulldozer under the pacific ocean and scoop up soil to form Taiwan? No china did NOT.
did china use a large crane to make mountains and rivers in Taiwan? No china did not.
Did china plant the 10 trillion trees in Taiwan? No china did Not.
there fore, china has no authorization to claim anyone. go read your history. 500 years ago. during the Tang dynasty Taiwan was labeled a outpost for only 8 years. Then the portugese occupy it, then the japanese. then since 1949. Taiwan has been an independent nation.
the history of china. a long time ago, the quin empire mass murder all their neighbors and forced all the surviors to speak mandarin. that is how china became china.
just go to any china town in your local city. you will see that there is always a mafia gangster boss who tries to control all the smaller business in the block. china= gangster . taiwan= small business corner store.
you see, Taiwanese built all the buildings, houses, buinesses in taiwan, they built a democratic government, they have their own flag, money, judicial sytem, language, culture., they have their own military. I hope if/when war comes, the taiwanese will give china a good bloody nose.

I'm interested in hearing people's opinions about the recent decision by Taiwan to "cease" applying the Guidelines for National Unification, and the "cessation" of its National Unification Council (NUC). There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about the issue in the international media (e.g., the semantics used to describe the NUC's new status, and the tendancy paint Taiwan as the bad guy through gross oversimplification of Chen Shui-bian's aims and policies). Is the media wrong to characterize this issue as a serious provokation on the part of Taiwan, or could this indeed lead to military conflict? Does it constitute a unilateral change in the status quo? Is this indeed a move toward independence?

The way I see it, the NUC was of questionable legality to begin with (its establishment was never formally approved by Taiwan's legislature), and has existed in name only over the past six years. Since that time, Taiwan has moved on, passing the 2003 referendum law (whose importance to the overall situation is woefully underappreciated, IMHO) that basically erases any chances of a "back-room unification deal". The NUC's prejudice toward the ultimate goal of unification with China is now not only out of step with popular opinion (a recent poll showed something like 87% of the public prefer having a voice in Taiwan's future status), it's legally impossible, thanks to the referendum law.

As to the questions I posed above, I really don't think the "cessation" of the NUC can be considered a big enough issue to prompt Beijing into military action. Given its fundamental irrelevance to Taiwan's cross-strait policies, I definitely don't think the move changes the status quo as much as some would want to believe. Taiwan is well within its right to continue refining its democracy, and getting rid of dead weight like the NUC seems like a sensible enough place to start.

Finally, the "cessation" of the NUC has nothing to do with independence. As I said before, the ability to decide Taiwan's ultimate status (either unification or independence) now lies in the hands of the electorate thanks to the referendum law, making any unilateral change to Taiwan's status impossible. So why are there so many media reports tying the NUC decision to some wild-eyed Taiwan independence conspiracy?

If we read the history carefully, Taiwan belongs to China and is part of China. The ultimate reason why Taiwan denied is due to the communism regime. Whether NUC will provide a mean of declaring war or not, it is simply the political games of both DPP and KMT to win the polls. Taiwan leaders only care for election and their supremacy over the country so that they could continue to gain their personal interest in terms of power or wealth.

Why people like us from the rest of the world concern on this matter? Simply because we have our personal agenda as well. We do not wish to see war between Taiwan and China as this will greatly affect the global economy and may lead to world war 3 if US intervene.

In reality, China can simply block the economy and the water region of Taiwan without war. THis could have pushed Taiwan to dead end and if Taiwan reiterate, China will have the excuse to conduct full military war against Taiwan.

That's why China love DPP than KMT where the likelihood of DPP to declare inependence is much higher than KMT and allow China to carry out the anti-cessation law of its sovereign.
I tend to suspect DPP members are more pro-china than KMT currently

In my opinion this is a stupid time for Taiwan to be mucking about with independence. Not only is China leery with the whole Kosovo thing but the US is tied up in multiple wars and may be electing a democrat president who would be working with a war weary democratic congress.

This makes it a dangerous time for Taiwan and they should be treading softly.

I totally agree with you.