|
|
|
|
The Dragon squeezes
Taiwan
By Bruce Klingner
China's Anti-Secession Law is neither as
inflammatory as many had feared nor as bombastic
as Beijing's previous statements on cross-straits
issues; nonetheless, it will have significant -
and not beneficial - ramifications for the region,
as well as for China-United States relations.
Washington already had called the legislation a
needless escalation of tensions that would
threaten the delicate diplomatic balance between
China and Taiwan. And residents of self-governing
Taiwan have been taking to the streets in protest;
most prefer the status quo of no-peace-no-war -
and big business for Taiwan on the mainland.
The bill was adopted overwhelmingly on
Monday by Beijing's rubber-stamp National People's
Congress, authorizing China to use military force
if Taiwan moves decisively toward or declares
formal independence. China considers Taiwan a
breakaway province. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao
emphasized that the use of force would be a "last
resort", after negotiations had failed. The law,
nonetheless, remains a legal justification for
war, at least from China's point of view.
The law codifies China's unwavering
determination to bring Taiwan into formal
unification with the mainland under the "one
China" principle, while opposing any manifestation
of Taiwanese independence or "separatist"
activity. The legislation affirms long-standing
policies by defining preservation of China's
sovereignty and territorial integrity as a core
national interest, and declaring that the
accomplishment of "reunifying the motherland is
the sacred duty of all Chinese people, including
the Taiwan compatriots".
The text carries
a clear signal to Taiwanese President Chen
Shui-bian to cease his pursuit of the island's
independence "under any name or by any means". The
law also warns the US against interfering in
"China's internal affairs". The Anti-Secession Law
clearly includes the military option as an
overarching threat but seeks to soften the
potential regional repercussions by repeatedly
emphasizing Beijing's goal of peaceful
reunification, to be achieved through phased
consultations, conducted on an equal footing for
as long as there is a "glimmer of hope" of success
in reunification.
Most notably, there is
no imminent threat of hostilities, since the
legislation does not carry either a specified or
implied deadline for achieving unification, nor
does it delineate proscribed red lines that would
trigger an automatic military reprisal. Some
Chinese officials in recent years had advocated
establishing a time deadline for unification,
after which military action would occur. The
actual legislation is less threatening.
The passage of the less provocative
language puts the onus on Taiwan to determine the
level of cross-strait tension through its actions.
At the same time, however, Taipei retains the
initiative and can in effect modify the onerous
aspects of the law by continuing a protracted
pursuit of formal independence, even if the word
"independence" is not used.
Taiwan,
meanwhile, warned China on Monday that it would
pay a price for the Anti-Secession Law, which has
triggered angry protests on the island and has
raised alarm bells from Tokyo to Washington.
"The Anti-Secession Law is a law that
authorizes war," Taiwan's cabinet spokesman Cho
Jung-tai told reporters. "It has caused resentment
in Taiwan and opposition in the international
community. China has to bear the responsibility
and pay a price for this law," Cho said.
Premier Frank Hsieh will review Taiwan's
economic and trade policies with the mainland on
Monday, Cho said. Since 1949, when the
Nationalists (Kuomintang) lost a civil war to the
communists and fled to the island, they have
talked about reclaiming the mainland, but that now
is hollow rhetoric. Trade and tourism between the
two have boomed since the late 1980s, with massive
Taiwanese investment in China.
Reading
the tea leaves in Beijing
The timing of
China's legislation is inopportune, coming as it
does after a thaw in bilateral relations,
including phased-in restoration of direct
transportation links. Moreover, Chen's pursuit of
independence had been dealt two setbacks by the
Taiwanese electorate. The defeat early last year
of the president's referendums - on whether Taiwan
should begin a dialogue with Beijing and increase
military measures against the Chinese military
threat - reflected popular unease with measures
that could alienate Beijing. The defeat of
Taiwan's pro-independence ruling pan-green
coalition, led by Chen's Democratic Progressive
Party (DPP), in legislative elections at year's
end was interpreted as another signal by the
populace to maintain the status quo - rather than
risking instability by pressing for formal
independence.
China's Anti-Secession Law
comes at a time of Chen's more accommodating
policy toward the mainland, manifested by the
resignation of four presidential advisers after
the president's pledge not to declare independence
nor change the island's official name from
Republic of China during his second term.
Pro-independence supporters now accuse Chen of
being "too soft" on China after his 10-point
declaration on cross-strait issues, made jointly
with James Soong, chairman of the opposition
People First Party.
Beijing's motivation
in pressing and passing the legislation may have
been domestic factors as much as international
pressures. The legislative initiative began during
a time when cross-strait rhetoric and tensions
were higher than in the past. Chinese President Hu
Jintao, the supreme leader who only recently
assumed all three titles of power from predecessor
Jiang Zemin, may have felt compelled to
demonstrate his nationalist credentials with the
anti-secession legislation, as a way of countering
criticism from conservative elements of the
Communist Party Central Committee. (Hu is now
chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, president
of the state and chairman of the party's powerful
Central Military Commission.) Any attempts by Hu
to delay or derail the anti-secession legislation
might have been interpreted as a sign of
insufficient resolve in grappling with an issue of
great strategic and emotional import to the
military and populace.
Nationalist
backlash in Taipei
Passage of the
Anti-Secession Law risks undermining, or at least
postponing, Beijing's ongoing attempt to woo
Taiwan through increased economic engagement, as
well as its strategic goal of gaining influence
throughout Asia by presenting a more benign image.
Although Taiwanese President Chen vowed to take a
"pragmatic approach" in response, other
politicians have been more outspoken in their
anger and have also advocated stronger responses.
Premier Frank Hsieh said he would support a
constitutional amendment to counter China's law -
an "anti-annexation law" - but added that the
executive would not itself initiate such a
revision.
Chiu Tai-san, vice chairman of
the islands's Mainland Affairs Council, said the
Anti-Secession Law "will clearly challenge
Taiwan"; he said it would likely lead to a delay
of planned bilateral initiatives as well as a
reassessment of the wisdom of the island's
investment of billions of dollars in China. Su
Tseng-chang, chairman of the Democratic
Progressive Party, claimed that 500,000
demonstrators are expected at a demonstration
planned for March 26, although it remained unclear
whether Chen would attend.
China's passage
of the Anti-Secession Law also may invigorate
Taiwanese demands for the island's legislature to
fund fully a proposed US$18 billion arms package,
including eight diesel-electric submarines, 12
P-3C anti-submarine aircraft, and six PAC III
Patriot anti-missile batteries. Minister of
National Defense Lee Jye warned lawmakers that
failure to procure the weapons would cause the
cross-strait military balance to tilt severely in
China's favor by 2012. China has more than 600
missiles aimed at Taiwan.
Lee was quoted
by Taiwanese media as predicting that China would
attack Taiwan in five to 10 years and that, "with
the defense capability we now have, we may not be
able to effectively repel [Chinese missile]
attacks". He characterized the Anti-Secession
Law's threat of force as "proactive and more
serious".
Anger in
Washington
The Chinese leadership also
risks alienating the administration of US
President George W Bush, which will be forced to
renew efforts to restrain a reactionary outpouring
of independence emotions while simultaneously
reassuring Taipei of US military support.
Washington has conducted a delicate balancing act
of restraining nationalists on both sides of the
Taiwan Strait in order to maintain peace and
stability.
The task has been made more
difficult by Chen's perceived quest for
independence and has resulted in strains in
Taiwan-US relations. The US is bound by the Taiwan
Relations Act to defend the island against Chinese
attacks, but Washington does not want to be seen
as encouraging Taipei, lest it aggravate Beijing
or risk escalating tensions. The last thing
Washington wants is to be drawn into a
cross-strait conflict.
Another dynamic in
Washington that will be affected by the Chinese
law is the divergence between the executive branch
and the US Congress, which has historically
advocated more overt support of Taiwanese
independence. Lawmakers may now be emboldened to
push for closer US-Taiwanese military relations,
despite the risk of raising China's ire.
Before the anti-secession bill was passed
into law, US government spokesmen characterized it
as "unhelpful" and publicly called on Beijing to
reconsider its passage; US officials reportedly
made pointed suggestions to Chinese counterparts.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan
responded angrily by calling US criticism
"irresponsible" and urging Washington not to
"embolden" Taiwanese separatists.
The
potential fallout from the Anti-Secession Law
comes at a time of resurrected discussion of the
Chinese military threat, a topic of great import
during the 2000 US presidential campaign but
played down after Beijing's support to the "global
war on terror". Director of central intelligence
Porter Goss testified during an annual
worldwide-threat briefing to Congress on February
16 that "Beijing's military modernization and
military buildup [are] tilting the balance of
power in the Taiwan Strait [and] improved Chinese
capabilities threaten US forces in the region".
Admiral William Fallon, commander of US
Pacific Command, told members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee last Tuesday that China's
military power is growing at "a rate much faster
than China would seem to need for national defense
alone", and he called the increase "disconcerting"
and "unprecedented".
Washington and the
European Union are engaged in a fierce debate over
the latter's consideration of rescinding its
embargo on weapons sales to China, imposed after
the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Though the
Anti-Secession Law breaks no new ground in
Beijing's stated objectives toward Taiwan, it
could provide additional fodder for those arguing
against removing the arms ban. President Chen
sought to influence the debate by arguing that
lifting the ban would be "tantamount to
encouraging a non-democratic, non-peaceful country
to use force against democratic Taiwan". In
addition, he argued that lifting the ban would
remove potential leverage in forcing Beijing to
improve its human-rights record.
Bruce Klingner is with Eurasia
Group, an independent research and consulting firm
that provides global political risk analysis. His
areas of expertise are strategic national
security, political and military affairs in China,
Korea and Japan. He can be reached at klingner@eurasiagroup.net.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us for information
on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette China Sex News
|
|
|
