When the Iraq invasion was in full swing, it overwhelmed world news. The usual attention given to East Asia and the rest of the world was missing or at least subdued. Even the important confrontation generated by North Korea was usually buried in the back pages of the newspapers. It was all Iraq. Iraq is only a step in the broad strategy that the George W. Bush administration has set for itself, however.
There are two other events that deserve equal attention: the perhaps permanent weakening of the UN, and the broad implications of the spread of SARS from China. It is still too early to judge the impact of all three of these events on the shape of the 21st century. But clearly, we are entering an entirely new world.
America was, and remains, the principal target of terrorist attacks. Sept. 11, 2001 gruesomely awakened the country to the fact that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can be available and used by any group or country directly against the US.
The result, a year later, was the publication by the White House of the National Security Strategy. Much of the attention this got in Taiwan's media was due to favorable comments about Taiwan and its democracy included in it. Those that follow international affairs throughout the world, including Taiwan, however, focused on the very fundamental change in US policy -- the need, and the right, to launch preemptive strikes against those who want to attack the US with WMD.
There are eight elements in the strategy paper: human rights, global terrorism, regional con-flicts, WMD, economic growth, democracy, coalitions and reform of national security institutions. The strategy paper was published last September, and one can already put events since then into many of these eight strategy elements. Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea have gained much public attention and are included in coalitions, regional conflict, WMD and terrorism. Pushing free trade agreements is another.
While there is wide support for active and cooperative counter-terrorism policies, few countries consider themselves major targets of terrorism. In addition, the question that naturally follows is who decides when, and against whom, such preemptive attacks should be made. The UN, obviously, was the most popular choice of the media and the general public.
The problem with depending on the UN was that it took considerable time just to get an agree-ment that Iraq had been operating for years in open violation of UN-sanctioned rules. There was some hope when Resolution 1441 was passed, but when it became time to enforce the rules by sanctioning an invasion by UN members, agreement could not be reached.
There will be books written about the US-led forces that invaded Iraq, and with time include what they accomplished. There will also be books written about the demise, or at least the fundamental weakening of the UN, as a result of its inability to resolve the differences between permanent members of the Security Council on this issue. It has become clear that the UN is not structured to deal with such a responsibility, and there has always been little support of making it so.
What we see now is only the beginning of America's new security strategy that will go far beyond the invasion of Iraq. Already the Bush administration has turned again to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And more recently there was a suggestion by President George W. Bush to pursue free trade agreements with countries in the Middle East.
Likewise, the question of the UN's role is yet to be debated. With the importance of all the special agencies that fall under the UN, it is more than likely the debate will center on adjusting or clarifying UN headquarters role and reforming its institutions than on abolishing it.
In the midst of this worldwide drama, SARS surfaced to generate yet another change in the way international affairs will be pursued in this new century. Only about 50 years ago, 30 million people in China were allowed to starve to death by its government rather than change a failed policy. There was no international uproar -- few outsiders even knew it was happening until years later.
When SARS was first noticed in China last year, the knee-jerk inclination that existed 50 years ago -- to suppress the information -- was still being practiced. As the government there now knows, it is no longer possible to do this.
This change is not based on a more liberal view of governance. The great strides in technology, the access to information and the necessity for transparency in managing a market economy, all make large-scale subterfuge far more difficult than in the past.
SARS at this point has had a major impact primarily on people in East Asia. It also has a noticeable impact on the politics of both Taiwan and China. The longer it remains a crisis, however, the more impact it will have on the economies beyond East Asia.
The extent to which the SARS crisis has influenced politics in China is less clear, though there is much speculation on the impact it will have on the third and fourth generation leadership there. In Taiwan, for a short time at least, it brought some unity in getting legislation passed and a degree of civility among the various political leaders.
The changed security strategy of the US, and the now questionable role of the UN, have both long-term and worldwide implications. SARS' implication on China's international standing following its poor handling of the initial stages of the crisis may take some time to overcome, while Taiwan's efforts to gain entry into the WHO have been strengthened. Whether they has been strengthened enough, however, is still an open question.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS