A flurry of recent Sino-US military exchanges has attracted much attention. Beijing and Washington decided to resume military exchanges during Chinese Vice President Hu Jintao's (胡錦濤) US visit in late April. Two fleets of US warships later anchored off Hong Kong in late August and last month. The US destroyer Paul F. Foster also visited the port of Qingdao late last month.
The exchanges between high-ranking US and Chinese military officials became even more frequent this month. First, a delegation from China's National Defense University visited Washington, followed by a visit by Deputy Chief of General Staff Xiong Guangkai (熊光楷). Second, Admiral Thomas Fargo, the head of the US Pacific Command, arrived in China last week and visited the sensitive Nanjing Military District of the People's Liberation Army.
Among these contacts, Xiong's US trip attracted the most attention, as it indicated a resumption of the negotiation mechanism between deputy defense ministers -- a mechanism which had been on hold ever since the EP-3 collision in April last year.
During his US visit in October, Chinese President Jiang Zemin (
During the recent talks, Xiong presented China's defense White Paper to Washington in order to show Beijing's goodwill. Of course, his true intention was to implant the White Paper's perspective in Washington. According to the US, the talks included various issues, from Taiwan to North Korea and Iraq.
Although the US said China's missile deployment is a threat to regional peace, China did not bring up its proposal to remove missiles aimed at Taiwan. US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warned Xiong during a meeting that the US cannot accept his 1995 remarks, in which he threatened to launch nuclear missiles at Los Angeles if the US came to the defense of Taipei. According to other sources, Washington believes Jiang's proposition was just propaganda. Besides, US arms sales to Taiwan are carried out in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.
One could say that China gained nothing from the recent round of discussions. No doubt Beijing didn't want to propose conditions for an exchange directly to the uncompromising US Department of Defense because any setback would then have made the proposal difficult to peddle. Instead, Beijing sought to influence government policy by setting its sights on Washington's think tanks.
After the talks, when Xiong had lunch with China specialists from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution, he raised the possibility that China could consider adjusting its missile deployment and also the hope that the US would consider reducing and ultimately halting arms sales to Taipei. Some "old China hands" in the West are easily manipulated by China because of their affinity for the country.
For 63-year-old Xiong, who is in charge of contacts with the US military, however, the good times are nearly over. He was promoted rapidly in the early 1990s when Jiang was purging Yang Shangkun (楊尚昆) and his half-brother, Yang Baibing (楊白冰). At that time, Jiang was virulently anti-US, so Xiong resorted to nuclear extortion in order to cater to Jiang. As a result, Xiong was promoted to his present job.
Prior to the Chinese Communist Party's 16th National Congress, there was a rumor that Xiong would become defense minister, but instead he is now in his third term as an alternate member of the Political Bureau. Moreover, his standing among the alternates is very low. Clearly he has fallen from favor. The next time China undertakes important policy-making work regarding Sino-US military relations, Xiong will not play a key role.
US President George W. Bush sent a congratulatory telegram to Jiang shortly after the conclusion of the National Congress, saying he "treasured" working with Jiang on improving bilateral ties and promoting world peace and prosperity. Moreover, Bush added that he "anticipated further cooperation" with Jiang as the latter continues to serve as chairman of the Central Military Commission.
According to the clues that have come to light thus far, Jiang achieved his goal of retaining the position of commission chairman by inciting the military to carry out a thinly disguised coup. If Bush appears too fervent in his approval, it will only encourage Jiang to follow the path of Adolf Hitler. In the future, it will be Western countries that bear the terrible consequences.
It's important to remember that China's 1.3 billion people and enormous resources are manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party. Those factors are exactly what Hitler was lacking.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND ETHAN HARKNESS
As the world’s nations sailed the River Seine during the opening ceremony for the Olympics last month, Taiwan once again suffered the enduring humiliation of being the sole country forced to sail under a fictitious name and flag. “Chinese Taipei” is not merely a fake place, but part of a strategic campaign by China to conquer Taiwan in the minds of the global public, forcing the international community to accept the fiction that China has authority over Taiwan, as I have written before in the Taipei Times (“Taiwan’s ‘Chinese Taipei’ problem,” May 22, page 8). If Taiwanese wish to be seen as
Air New Zealand Ltd’s decision to ditch its 2030 emissions target suggests more airlines would also have to confront a harsh reality: There is simply not enough sustainable fuel or new, more efficient aircraft. This double whammy has left the world’s commercial carriers, among the planet’s biggest polluters, without their two best decarbonization weapons. Global supply of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) would be just 0.5 percent of total fuel requirements this year, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) said. At the same time, Boeing Co and Airbus SE cannot make jets fast enough. Boeing, under pressure from regulators, has slowed output
Aurelijus Vijunas’ recent opinion article “An accurate term for ‘Taiwanese’” (Aug. 3, page 8) argues that ‘Taiwanese’ (the common name for Hoklo) is not a suitable name for the Southern Min variety spoken in Taiwan. He presents three main points: Taiwanese is mutually intelligible with some Southern Min varieties, especially in China; the name was coined by Japanese officials without linguistic basis; and Taiwan is a multilingual and multicultural society. Vijunas’ arguments are flawed based on global language naming. First, he conflates language naming with linguistic classification. While Taiwanese is a Southern Min variety, many languages are named independently of their typological
Ahead of this year’s presidential election, all three major candidates — William Lai (賴清德), Hou You-yi (侯友宜) and Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — announced their support for spending 3% of Taiwan’s gross domestic product on defense. This goal dates back to the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration. It is no longer sufficient, nor reassuring to foreign supporters who fear Taiwan is not sufficiently committed to its own defense. At the time of Chen’s election to the presidency in 2000, Taiwan’s defense spending as a share of GDP had been declining for decades. When the United States withdrew from the US-ROC mutual defense treaty