Asia Times: Beijing's fatal flaw


	March 30, 2002	atimes.com

China

Beijing's fatal flaw
By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - For decades the common wisdom in the West about relations between China and the United States was that they hinged on the issue of Taiwan. Patrick Tyler in his book on Sino-American ties delves at length into Deng Xiaoping's demands for the United States to cut its bond with Taiwan and the US effort to convince the Chinese leader that ties with Washington would smooth the bump over Taiwan. More than 20 years later, one can see this occurring to a certain degree.

During his recent trip to China, US President George W Bush stated publicly that his country was committed to the defense of Taiwan, and that although he favored a peaceful solution, he would not tolerate provocation by either side - which everyone in Beijing understood to mean that the US would not push for a unilateral declaration of independence from the island.

Many observers believe that it is not in the interests of the US to push the button on Taiwan to trouble Beijing. It is clear that even if the formal independence of the island did not lead to renewed independence claims from Tibet or Xinjiang, it would start an important political crisis in China with strong destabilizing potential for the country and for the region. Although some US hawks in the past were able to find attentive ears about the game of subverting China, the 1997 financial crisis and even more the war in Afghanistan have proved the importance of China to US interests in Asia. In both instances - Taiwan, human rights, etc notwithstanding - Beijing has proved to be America's most helpful ally in the region, in practicality outranking Japan. In the financial crisis Beijing stood firm and didn't devalue its currency in the face of the unstoppable slide of the yen, and in Afghanistan Beijing provided assistance in the field and in Pakistan, both out of Tokyo's reach.

If even Japan is not as valuable to the US as China, imagine trading Beijing for Taipei. The lingering economic crisis in Taiwan and the island's growing dependence on imports from the mainland decrease its value in the regional balance of power. Beijing sees this clearly, and so does Taipei, which reckons that the tide has turned and now is not the time to press the issue of independence, which is opposed by Beijing, and by the US for the sake of stability. Therefore, those in Taiwan who fear being drawn further under Beijing's influence try to widen the gap between island and mainland. This can be done by poking Beijing in the hope that its nervous reactions inflame US public opinion and pressure Washington to support Taiwan.

The cynical Marxist upbringing of the Beijing leaders tells them that the real issue is not so much reunification (peaceful or not) with Taiwan, but the power struggle on the island and possibly even more so on the mainland. If Taiwan were to say today "We want to reunify tomorrow," Beijing wouldn't know what to do. Beijing's purpose on Taiwan is not actual reunification but to stop Taiwan from drifting away from its influence. It would be delighted if Taiwan agreed to open a dialogue on reunification, but nobody really thinks even an agreement on reunification can be achieved any time soon, and after such an agreement the actual reunification would take decades.

But internal politics doesn't have long-term views, and for this reason both in Beijing and in Taipei there are parties interested in stirring up a commotion. The difference is that troublemakers in Beijing, while they have some influence, are actually out of the decision-making process. In Taipei they seem to be closer to the heart of power, and they have a trump card with the Americans that they cleverly play: Taiwan is a democracy and China isn't. China often forgets that the US government can't make decisions independently - it owes its power to the will of the voters, who look at the newspapers, which have to tell complicated stories in 300-400 words. The story of the balance of power in Asia is thus obscure because it is too complicated for the US media, while the issue of democracy versus communism is very simple.

It is a basic rule of communication on every continent: Stark black-and-white contrasts are easier to grasp than millions of shades of colors. So in the end, even if erudite pundits in Washington may appreciate the complexities of China's predicament and make a case for helping Beijing out, the story of Taiwan's democracy wins hands down against the big, red communist Chinese bear. This is even more the case when Taiwan is just one of many China issues troubling the international press, along with the crackdown on religious groups, human rights, dissent, etc.

Given this array of bad stories, it is surprising how sympathetic the foreign press is to China and what a wonderful job the Foreign Ministry and information departments are doing. But sympathy and communication craft can't change the reality that the lack of democracy and freedom in China is bad press. This, and not Taiwan any longer, is the main hurdle in relations between China and the US. The liberal Abraham Lincoln fought to reunify with the American South to liberate the slaves there; similarly a liberal China could have reasons to fight (or threaten to fight) to liberate Taiwan, but it is very difficult for an illiberal China to raise its voice against democratic Taiwan.

All the suspicions about Beijing's intentions on Taiwan and the region, even about its workers' protests and corruption, at the end of the day boil down to one thing: the opacity of the Chinese system and thus its unpredictability. The thing investors treasure most is a sound, long-term political and legal environment, which exists in the US but not in China. We know that Bush will be in power for four or eight years and that a coup has not taken place there for more than 200 years. In China we don't know how long a president will stay in power, and coups and plots, however masked, have been part of the Chinese political landscape for the past hundred years at least.

((c)2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)