The strong suspicion among pan-blue politicians of the government's support for the US' military action to liberate Iraq is an echo of Beijing's concerns.
The Chinese government's stance has consistently been to oppose the US. It didn't support a UN Security Council resolution by the US, the UK and Spain proposing military action against Iraq, and even hinted at using its veto. On March 20, after hostilities began, Beijing demanded that the US cease its military action at once.
There are two main reasons why Beijing is opposed to US military action. First, it does not want to see the US become exceedingly powerful, a single strong power in control of the whole Middle East. Second, it worries that the US will use its neo-interventionist policies as an excuse to intervene in any future Chinese military action against Taiwan.
Particularly noteworthy, however, is that, even though China opposes the US, it does so gently, without working against the US as fiercely as do France or Russia. China is clearly straddling the fence in the hope that it will be able to maintain a friendly relationship with the US. It is also restricting anti-war demonstrations by university students and foreigners. As a result, US President George W. Bush has called former president Jiang Zemin (
Some people in Taiwan worry about the US taking military action against Iraq without UN authorization, since China might follow its example and invade Taiwan. They equate China with the US and discuss Taiwan and Iraq in the same breath, which is a very strange kind of logic. Did Mao Zedong (
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has used all his armed might to invade another country and he has used biological and chemical weapons against his own people. What could be the motives of Taiwan's intellectuals and media when they discuss this nation in the same breath as the extremely evil Saddam? In fact, if China opposes US use of military force to solve this conflict, how could it justify its unwillingness to give up the option to use military force against Taiwan?
China also differs from the US in its approach to the North Korean nuclear issue. Washington has pressed China to use its influence with Pyongyang in order to stop it from manufacturing nuclear weapons. Until now, however, it seems China does not want, or is unable, to do so, something which has created deep disappointment and resentment in Washington. Beijing insists on bilateral talks and negotiations between the US and North Korea, and has even used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block debate regarding Pyongyang's violations of international treaties and its expulsion of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors, thereby rendering the world body totally ineffective.
Beijing is pressing the US to handle the Iraq issue through the Security Council. So why doesn't it want to go through the UN when it comes to North Korea? Isn't it contradictory to merely want bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang?
Some people in Taiwan constantly worry that Washington will lean towards China because the US is in great need of Chinese assistance when it comes to the Iraqi and North Korean issues, and that this would be disadvantageous to this nation. Such worries are unnecessary, since there is currently no way in which Beijing could assist the US in these issues to the extent that the US, apart from being grateful, would sacrifice Taiwan to reward China for its help.
In an interview with Taiwanese media on March 25, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Randy Schriver said that regardless of whether it was a matter of public support, substantive contributions or participation in future reconstruction work in Iraq, he was grateful for Taiwan's straightforwardness and friendship with the US.
He also said, "Even if China tries to pressure the US, we will not give in. The US will continue to respect the promises made to Taiwan in the Taiwan Relations Act. This isn't something that China can change."
When Schriver gave this interview, the US government had already sent the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier battle group to the East Asian seas. This is a very important signal to Pyongyang and Beijing that the US is not neglecting security in the East Asia.
Beijing's biggest headache is whether the US will adopt strict measures towards North Korea (including use of military force) after the war in Iraq has ended if Pyongyang does not heed Beijing's exhortations and instead continues to produce nuclear weapons and conduct missile tests, thus further heightening international tension.
What would Beijing do should the US decide to take military action against North Korea? Sit by and watch as its formerly close ally is subjected to military sanctions, thus losing a buffer country? Or will it once again oppose the US, assist North Korea and engage the Americans in war, as it did in the 1950s?
Having a wilful rogue nation as neighbor and friend is a burden that China could do without.
Parris Chang is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS