Posted on 12/18/2003 10:32:51 AM PST by neverdem
President Chen Shui-bian caused the crisis, not President Bush.
For this China hand, who has been outspokenly sympathetic towards Taiwan for the past quarter century, a brief visit to that democratic island nation earlier this month was deeply dispiriting.
For many years I had shared the anxious concerns of Taiwan's leaders that one day the United States might carelessly or cynically betray its commitments to Taiwan and thereby make that free and thriving island democracy even more vulnerable to China's driving ambition to conquer it. But after meeting and listening to President Chen Shui-bian and some of his closest supporters and advisers, I sadly concluded that, instead, it was President Chen who had betrayed the United States. He did so by recklessly yet quite consciously promoting his own political fortunes at the expense of the vital national interests of the United States.
Last week at the White House, President George W. Bush rebuked President Chen by name in the presence of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. This prompted bitter responses from many U.S. China hands who share my view that China's strategic ambitions pose a dangerous threat not only to democratic Taiwan but also to the rest of East Asia and ultimately to the United States, which has a vital national interest in counterbalancing a rising China.
My fellow China hawks got it wrong. Judging by what I heard President Chen and his supporters themselves say last week, Chen richly deserved President Bush's unprecedented rebuke — even though Bush's precise wording may have gone a bit too far. In short, the actions of Taiwan's president forced Bush-administration officials to conclude, only a few days before Chinese Premier Wen's arrival, that the U.S. president had little choice but to put distance between himself and the Taiwanese leader.
There's little doubt that those Bush-administration officials responsible for China and Taiwan policy were driven by that special anger felt by those who have concluded that their friendship is being abused. That's because, in early 2001, the Bush administration demonstrated that it was the most pro-Taiwan administration in decades. The president himself had removed much of the ambiguity surrounding the U.S. commitment to Taiwan by declaring that the United States would do "whatever it takes" to help Taiwan defend itself in the event of an unprovoked attack by China. The administration also approved sales of military equipment more advanced than anything Taiwan had previously obtained from us.
None of this changed after 9/11, but the United States soon had to reassess its tactical interests in East Asia. With our military forces committed primarily to fighting the war against terrorism, we had severely limited resources to fight a war in East Asia, either in the Taiwan Strait or on the Korean Peninsula. This meant we had to reach a tactical accommodation with China, not only to ensure that it wouldn't take any rash actions against Taiwan but also, increasingly, so that it would help broker a resolution of the North Korean nuclear crisis so we could avoid military action if at all possible.
In short, we were vulnerable in East Asia. Fortunately, China had separately concluded by the end of 2001 that it should at least temporarily refrain from the sort of diplomatic coercion and military adventurism that had proven counterproductive in the 1990s. So Beijing was willing to reach a tactical accommodation with the United States.
The problem was Taiwan's president. Chen Shui-bian's mission, driven by his pro-independence political base on the island, was to constantly strengthen Taiwan's autonomy and separate identity. If that angered China, so much the better, because that tended to polarize Taiwan's electorate in a way that favored Chen's reelection as president in March of 2004.
Starting last year, Bush-administration envoys and Douglas Paal, the de facto U.S. ambassador to Taiwan, repeatedly pleaded with President Chen not to make waves and provoke China, underlining how vital it was to global U.S. strategic interests that stability prevails as much as possible in China-Taiwan relations.
In effect, Chen ignored Bush-administration pleas despite the steps Bush had taken earlier to strengthen Taiwan security. Chen took several steps in recent months to strengthen Taiwan's independent identity that, most significantly, were guaranteed to anger China. Most recently, he proposed various versions of referendums that were seen, at minimum, as laying the groundwork for a referendum in which Taiwanese voters would one day endorse what would effectively be a declaration of independence.
Invoking principles of democracy and self-determination, it is easy for pro-Taiwan Americans to declare that democratic Taiwan should have the right to hold any referendum it wishes. In fact, many of us favor such moves. But right now, when the vital interests of its U.S. security guarantor are in jeopardy, is not the time.
Last week, Chen told visitors that his intelligence community had informed him that Beijing had decided to retaliate if any referendum was held, "whatever the cost" Beijing might have to pay. Nevertheless, Chen ploughed recklessly ahead with his referendum plans for domestic political purposes even though the United States had in recent weeks increased the urgency and frequency of its pleas to him to "cool it."
During my brief visit to Taiwan, I had no opportunity to talk with Chen's critics in the political opposition or at our de facto embassy, the American Institute in Taiwan. But listening to Chen himself and to some of his closest and most senior supporters only strengthened my view that Chen had committed a serious blunder by completely failing to understand that, despite its commitment to Taiwan, the Bush administration has an even higher commitment to protect the vital interests of the United States.
Some advisers, assured anonymity, expressed dismay over Chen's error and offered little defense. Another blustered that Chen would be a hero in the eyes of Taiwanese voters for defying both Washington and Beijing but then acknowledged that Chen had been driven by political expediency. When Chen himself was asked for his explanation of why the most pro-Taiwan administration in recent U.S. history had ended up rebuking him, he dodged the question.
This is a sad time for those of us who have long looked to democratic Taiwan as a worthy and key part of the line of defense against China's grandiose strategic ambitions. All the more so given the unseemly glee with which those U.S. China watchers, who consistently interpret Beijing's actions sympathetically and portray Taiwan as a "troublemaker," have pounced on this entire episode.
Nevertheless, the fundamentals of the de facto U.S.-Taiwan alliance are still intact even though the atmospherics have been soured to the point that the Bush administration may never again give President Chen the benefit of the doubt. Of course, if Chen persists in the coming Taiwan presidential campaign in jeopardizing vital U.S. interests for personal political gain, the fundamentals may not hold.
— Ross H. Munro is director of Asian studies at the Center for Security Studies in Washington, D.C. and is co-author of The Coming Conflict with China. He also teaches Chinese Grand Strategy at the Institute of World Politics. Munro visited Taiwan last week.
Did I miss something, or did Taiwan suddenly become a U.S. territory? Why do we have any authority to tell Chen to "cool it", and why should we blame Taiwan for this flap? Like it or not, Taiwan is a defacto sovereign nation, whose government we recognized as the government of all of China until the political winds changed in the early 1970's.
Despite their efforts to make us forget their true red colors by dumping billions of dollars worth of cheap products into our dollar stores and Wal-Marts, the Chi-Coms are still nominally communists, and are our sworn enemies. And thanks to the Sinkmeister, they have hundreds of nuclear warheads trained on our country. We still have the power to destroy them many times over, however, and we still have a moral obligation to protect the non-communist, democratic government in Taiwan. Abandoning the Taiwanese at this juncture would really (to quote Mao Tse-Tung) paint America as a "paper tiger".
That's one of the problem our government seems to have. We claim to be in favor of a country being a democracy, but we get irritated when they act like one.
Bush did the right thing.
If China starts anything with Taiwan, we'll stomp them out of the water so hard they'll be afraid to go out and fish. That doesn't mean Taiwan should have free reign to cause mischief. It is an abuse of our friendship and trust. We've gone out on a considerable limb to back them up over the years, we could have abandoned them to the wolves long ago if we didn't value their de facto liberty.
No, it's not the perfect solution, but we can only do so much. We don't need them starting a needless barfight and then guilting us into finishing it.
But, sure, Sandy Berger and all the Clintonites are also praising Bush for it.
Says a lot.
I have to laugh at claims that placating the ChiComs is in our strategic interest. Getting ready to confront the ChiComs is in our strategic interest. They are not our friend. Taiwan is our friend. The ChiComs are our enemy, and they'll be our enemy long after al-Qa'eda and the other Islamists are crushed.
So now democracy is sticking its tongue out at dictatorship. And int turn an attack by the dictatorship is perfectly appropriate?
'Cause it's our guys asses that will be on the line defending Taiwan in the event of a war.
Who said it's appropriate? Appropriate or not, it's our Navy and Air Force that would defend Taiwan in the event of such an attack. But I think you and I have had this argument before.
No he didn't.
He harmed himself more than Taiwan or China. He undercut his own policies and the Bush doctrine.
You and Sandy Berger and all the Clintonites say Bush did the right thing. Why wouldn't they. It was what Clinton did first. Bush finally did it too.
Taiwan isn't harmed by this. Bush and we, the US, are.
You. And Bush.
The problem is Bush told the ChiComs they were perfectly right to attack. If this isn't making a war much more likley nothin is.
You don't go around encouraging irrational despots by agreeing with them and castigating the people they want to kill for making them mad and justifying their attack. Especially not when it is about their hatred of freedom and democracy.
There's only one thing I can call you, and that's a liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.