Chinese President Hu Jintao's(
For instance, no comment was made on Chen's dissolution of the National Unification Council, even though China regarded it as changing the "status quo" and hence provocative.
Ever since Sino-US relations were normalized in the 1970s, China has sought to influence US policy to facilitate its annexation of Taiwan. During the 1970s and 1980s, the two countries' "strategic partnership" against the Soviet Union provided an important point of leverage that Beijing sought to exercise.
But the US, under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, maintained its commitment to help Taiwan defend itself against an armed invasion from China. The US did subscribe to the "one China" principle, but has urged peaceful unification. And that is where things stand today.
During his visit, Hu maintained that the US was committed to "opposing" Taiwan's independence. The US position, though, is that it does not support Taiwan's independence. That might seem a matter of semantics, but the two formulations are not quite the same. The first would suggest an active role for the US, while the second is rather passive. What China wants is for the US to dump Taiwan, and let Beijing do the rest.
This obviously is not going to happen, judging by a statement from the Pentagon's spokesman on Asia-Pacific security.
According to Bryan Whitman, "It is US policy to encourage China to emerge as a responsible international partner."
He added: "However, there is also a lack of transparency and some uncertainty surrounding China's future path. Therefore, we and others have to naturally hedge against the unknown."
It is known that the US is not happy about hundreds of Chinese missiles aimed at Taiwan and military build-up in the region. Taiwan looks like an integral part of the US' Asia-Pacific strategic architecture though problems could arise if China managed to destabilize Taiwan from within.
The US is reorienting its military deployment, focusing more on Asia than Europe. According to a French Press Agency report, "Guam is being transformed into a hub for long-range bombers, intelligence and surveillance aircraft, and logistics support. The military plans to move 8,000 marines to Guam from Okinawa, Japan, by 2012."
It adds: "The US Navy is adding a sixth aircraft carrier to the Pacific Fleet and has decided to make the Pacific theater the home port of 52 attack submarines -- 60 percent of its fleet by 2010."
According to Whitman, "We're looking at changing from being a garrison military to being a globally expeditionary force, shifting the strategic balance, enabling the military to be more agile."
This reorientation of global strategy is designed as much to fight terrorism as it is to confront any new challenge to US political and military supremacy, with China as the obvious candidate.
Apart from military redeployment, the US is also strengthening its relations with important Asian countries. It has revamped security ties with Japan, with Tokyo taking a more active role. It is now strategically engaging with India. Even though Australia doesn't want to be seen as part of a China-containment ring, it still is part of the US-led regional and global security architecture.
China, though, is careful not to directly challenge the US. It swears by so-called "peaceful development." Its leaders and diplomats stress that they are not competing with the US for world power, as they have so much to do to improve the lives of their teeming millions.
As Wen told an Australian journalist, "It is true that there are differences between China and the United States, but they are not antagonistic or confrontational in nature. There is an extensive fusion of interests in many areas."
He then listed the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, the Iranian nuclear question, the Middle East, in addition to fighting terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation. But on most of these issues China has reservations about US policy.
During his US visit, Hu was unwilling to give any ground on contentious issues like sanctions against Sudan over Darfur, against Iran on the nuclear question or to push North Korea on its nuclear stance.
He was equally steadfast (with minor variations of emphasis) on issues like China's burgeoning trade surplus, its undervalued currency, human rights, religious freedom and its defense build-up.
At the same time, he sought to highlight the idea of the two countries as stakeholders in the international system.
Hu said: "China and the United States are not only stakeholders [Bush's terminology], but they should also be constructive partners."
But that is a distant prospect, if it is achievable at all, because their strategic interests are starting to diverge more than they converge. Take for instance, Hu's state visit to Saudi Arabia, where he signed agreements to secure energy supplies.
He also made a pitch for political cooperation with the Arab world. He said that China was ready to work with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries "to strengthen peace and development in the Middle East and to build a world of peace, stability and prosperity."
Hu's opening gambit caused excitement in Saudi Arabia. Prince Walid bin Talal, a member of the Saudi royal family, reportedly said: "China is a big consumer of oil. Saudi Arabia needs to open new channels beyond the West. So this is good for both of us."
But it certainly won't be good for the US, with China making incursions into areas strategically important to Washington.
China has an advantage in the Arab world, and in Sudan and Iran where it has made investments in the oil industries: It doesn't concern itself with their domestic politics. And it is not mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also not compromised by taking sides on the question of the Palestinians and Israel.
At a time when the US is overstretched, China is using its "soft power" (diplomacy, trade, etc) to spread its wings everywhere. What the US needs is a judicious mix of "soft" and "hard" power. At the present it looks like it is leaving much of the field in the area of soft power to China.
Even though Hu's US visit was unspectacular, China is certainly making some spectacular advances in the Asia-Pacific, Middle East and oil-rich parts of Africa.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
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