At the press conference held following the conclusion of the summit between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), Bush seemed to do away with conventions of the diplomatic code by talking of "disagreements" between the two leaders, rather than their having a "frank discussion," in Hu's presence. Both sides will scrutinize and dispute this very public act of causing loss of face and its significance for global relations.
This was Hu's first official visit to the US as Chinese leader, and many China experts such as Andrew Nathan and Elizabeth Economy, prior to his visit, were saying that the main purpose of his trip was to reduce US dissatisfaction with China. The major point of contention here was the US$200 billion trade deficit between the two countries, prompting Hu to send a trade mission, which signed deals worth some US$16 billion, to the US prior to his visit, as a gesture of goodwill.
When Hu first arrived in the US he took part in a conference in Seattle at which he attempted to allay US suspicions as to China's designs for the future, quoting Zheng Bijian (
In addition, on five occasions during the welcoming ceremony prior to the summit, and in the press conference after its conclusion, Hu mentioned mutual benefits with a win-win outcome. This is how he would like to color US-China relations, but his emphasis on it also betrayed the dissatisfaction he feels regarding those relations as they stand. He has publicly said that he wants to see mutual respect and equal treatment between the two countries, and also opened his address during the welcoming ceremony with a reference to the opening chapter of China-US trade relations, when US merchant ships arrived off the Chinese coast in 1784.
Hu declined to make any concrete promises on Bush's demands of reducing the trade deficit, letting the yuan appreciate against the US dollar and improving China's record on human rights and religious freedoms. Bush was able neither to improve his own domestic approval ratings nor alleviate pressure from Congress as a result of Hu's visit, and the pressure Hu exerted on Bush to "oppose" Taiwanese independence also came to no avail, with Hu having to settle for Bush reiterating that he "did not support" it. All of the above meant that there was little improvement in China-US relations, and that Hu failed to achieve his goals for the trip.
There was, however, a subtle shift in the relations between the two countries. The Bush administration has, on many occasions, asked Beijing to enter into talks with Taipei to reduce tension across the Taiwan Strait, ever since China passed its so-called "Anti-Secession" Law in March last year, a move the US regarded as a unilateral change to the status quo. All Beijing has done, however, is increase contact with the Taiwanese public and opposition parties, treating the government itself as a non-entity.
During this summit, Bush made no demands for the two sides to engage in dialogue: This is very likely the result of the recent trip to the US of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
With the Taiwanese government being marginalized by the US as well, it is unlikely that cross-strait relations will improve, but it is unlikely they will deteriorate, either. After this summit, Beijing knows that Bush's patience with Taipei has grown thin. During the recent meeting between Ma and President Chen Shui-bian (
With the US clearly not supporting Taiwanese independence, Beijing no longer concerned that the US will covertly support any moves to independence by the Chen government, and Chen himself powerless to make such moves, neither China, the US nor Taiwan are likely to change the situation in the Taiwan Strait. Now that both China and Washington have marginalized Taipei, the situation has become, in the short term, more stable.
Emerson Chang is director of the Department of International Studies at Nan Hua University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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