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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS