Posted on 06/28/2002 9:38:59 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State
Peter Brookes, one of Taiwan's most steadfast supporters in the George W. Bush administration, has resigned his position, in a development that took many China watchers in Washington by surprise.
Brookes, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia and the Pacific, will leave his position barely a year after he took the post on July 16 last year.
News of his resignation broke in a story Thursday in the Washington Times, and the resignation was confirmed by the Pentagon later in the day.
Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Commander Jeff Davis said that Brookes decided to resign because it was "best for his family," a reason Brookes also gave others in Washington. "His intention was to remain in the job for about one year," Davis said.
While the resignation was confirmed privately to reporters Thursday morning after the Times article appeared, it was officially confirmed in an unusual way: in an e-mail Davis sent to reporters announcing the cancellation of a press briefing on US-East Asia policy that Brookes had scheduled for that day, at which he was to have discussed his resignation.
Brookes will continue his duties until he is replaced, but intends to leave sometime this summer, Davis said.
No replacement has been named, but early speculation centered on two National Security Council officials. One is Karen Brooks, a Southeast Asia expert who had been in the State Department under then assistant secretary for East Asia Stanley Roth during the Clinton era. She is a Democrat.
The other is Michael Green, a Japan specialist who has worked for the Defense Department and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Michael Pillsbury, a Mandarin-fluent China military expert who is a consultant and translator for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has also been named as a possible replacement.
However, China-watchers in Washington speculate that Pillsbury is also a possible replacement for the State Department's assistant secretary for East Asia, James Kelly, who is said to be considering leaving soon.
Some sources say Brookes gave his one-month resignation notice to Douglas Feith, the under-secretary of defense for policy, last week. He announced his resignation to his staff last Friday.
However, word of his impending departure apparently began to surface at the beginning of the month.
Rumors of Brookes' departure have surfaced since last August, when the Washington Times, a newspaper that often reflects the views of the right wing in American foreign policy, ran an article saying that Brookes had lost the confidence of Rumsfeld, although Brookes was considered a steady conservative when it came to China.
Sources noted that Brookes failed to be included in a number of trips to China and other important visits to Asian countries in recent months, and was not included in Washington meetings such as that with China's Vice President Hu Jintao in May.
However, other observers note that Brookes has been responsible for improving military relations with Japan and the Philippines -- and devised and held a groundbreaking round of security talks with Indonesia.
Brookes is known to be extremely concerned over the Chinese missile buildup across the Strait from Taiwan -- and the threat this represents to Taiwan's existence. He also backs the most extensive US arms sales to Taiwan possible.
It might be a good thing that many that are stepping down or being removed from their positions now. When selected or appointed they didn't sign on to work in the midst of terrorism, they just might not have the stamina to do the job.
Nope.
I read it on FR Wednesday at the end of an unrelated article.
True, True I couldn't agree more. When all the shaking stops I hope good men/women are still standing.
Aside from the hateful atmosphere, no doubt the 9/11 experience was enough to think about less stressful places to live.
I heard Mr. Pillsbury on the opening of the USCC right around April of last year...
He was very impressive, and if I am not mistaken one of Rumsfeld's advisors.
In the end though I would like to hear a lot more about his, and everyone else's views on China, personal or otherwise.
Based on a book he wrote, he has a good idea on what is going on...albeit there is a whole lot more work to do. If I am not mistaken he also does not like the 'who lost China' panda hugger/nuke their ass debate that has paralyzed Washington.
"Being on one team or the other"...ends up with absolutely nothing getting done except fighting in Washington, and nothing being done about China.
That very well might be what happened to this guy...Pillsbury and the others (Rumsfeld included) are taking aim at both sides in order to bring about a less 'partisan' way to deal with China... That would be my guess...
The Chinese labeled Pillsbury as a Red Team member, which they think he is 'pro' China...
At the USCC he said, "I have no idea why they think like that..."
Advantage "Red Team."
This Brookes guy is a super hawk on China.
Second, the Bush Admin, at least from early indications want to much more fully engage China on a much deeper scale, not just the surface things. "Strategic competition" if it is not reversed means a whole lot of things.
However, one thing it does NOT mean is just cutting the Chinese off completely.
Hence, the recent trip to China by the Penatagon probably really pissed this guy off... and he quit.
I will be willing to bet that his form of 'engagement' does not fit with what the Admin was doing or planning on...
If you want to know my .02$ on what 'engagement' and 'strategic competition' means I will oblige...
It by far is not completely military though, which would most likely force things to end up "hot"...which is probably where this guy's policies would have probably ended up...
Such a military strategy would equate to trying to kill roaches with a metal Easton baseball bat...
The three factors (that I see) so far are:
1. Economic competition, but not quite 'cutting them off'. This should have the most reaching effects in limiting Beijing's dominance in the region...
Things like free trade with Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan are all supposedly in the works...
2. Military engagement and competition... for influence in the Indian Ocean as well as the Asia Pac. This could be done a whole lot of ways... (look for China's Navy to get the most money in the coming years...Navy, not missiles are IMO going to be the brunt of the military build up)
3. Diplomatic relations, which also means not cutting them off completely economically. We are trying to balance the power, but at the same time try to make friends with the right people. It could well be 'competition, but disarming' at the same time...
Competition because we are not going to let them do as they please...and disarming in that we are going to show them 'what America is all about'... and how that can be helpful in their own country...
In other words we are gonna compete like hell with a big smile on our faces with our hand outstreched ready for a handshake...
The complete 'engagement' will end up getting us a whole lot more than just head to head headbutting...
Here are the implications about China/Taiwan...
The US does have a one-China policy...but what that means is subject to interpretation.
If you take a Taiwanese who grew up in California, and a Beijing person who grew up in California, odds are they are not mortal enemies...
Hence the division between China and Taiwan must be put into context. The REAL division is caused by the CCP and their ideologies, and the way they run things.
Knowing exactly what we compete with is the key.
In the end, if China were to completely reform, and get over their own propaganda, no one minds good relations between Taiwan and the Mainland...
The ball is in the court of the Mainland. Reform, or we compete you into reforming.
Just imagine this... "China" adopts a much different political system... where there is free press and local control...(instead of an all controlling central dictatorship who thinks they are emperors...and want to militarily conquer Taiwan for its own purposes)
The new government sees Taiwan as an equal, and both have interest in economic cooperation and equality. In other words, Taiwan maintains its self control...but at the same time the ideological gap between the two is erased...(right now China wants to erase the gap alright, but they want to do it via conquering and forcing Taiwan to kowtow to the CCP)
The long term solution to the problem lies in the reform of the mainland and the extraction of their idelogues and control phobias...
Pretty good for a novice China watcher eh?
As far as leaks, who knows... its very possible. That stuff showing up on Drudge about 'they flew so close to our plane again' might have been him...
While it might be true, it could also be viewed as yelling fire in a theater...and hence getting in the way of the broader policies... that also explains the recent mum on China stuff coming out of Washington...
Sometimes I think lots of people in Washington want everyone to shut up for a while...and let them handle it...that might even include FR...
Of course that all depends on how one frames the debate...(smile)
If it reverts down into a bash fest, thats no good...
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.