Three ‘distortions’
I am extremely displeased with the article published in your newspaper entitled “Glaser floats Clinton-PRC compromise” (Feb. 11, page 3). The article purports to present the views that I expressed at a briefing for the press held at the Center for International and Strategic Studies on Feb. 10 on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s upcoming visit to Asia. A transcript of the event is available at the Federal News Service, so the record is clear and indisputable. My statements were mischaracterized and distorted.
First, the sub-headline reads that Glaser “said any agreement reached on Taiwan would probably not include something so direct as the cessation of weapons sales.” The article then says that I suggested that a “compromise” might be reached between the US and China. I said nothing to suggest that there would be negotiations between the US and China regarding Taiwan. In fact, I insisted that there would be no deal. I never said anything that would imply that the US and China would reach any agreement that concerns Taiwan. This is a complete distortion of my words.
Second, I did not term President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policies as “pro-China” policies. I view Ma’s policies as pro-Taiwan.
Third, I did not say that China would ask the US to end arms sales to Taiwan in return for restarting its military-to-military relationship with Washington. I said that China would not likely change its position of asking the US to end arms sales to Taiwan. But I also said that the Chinese are looking for a face-saving gesture (which is quoted accurately). That is quite different from, and even contrary to, a hard-line position that insists on an end to arms sales in return for restarting military ties.
BONNIE GLASER
Senior Associate
Freeman Chair
Center for International and Strategic Studies
Editor’s note: Review of the full transcript confirms that Glaser did not say that “China would ask the US to end arms sales to Taiwan in return for restarting its military-to-military relationship with Washington” or otherwise imply this. The Taipei Times regrets the error.
However, on the other complaints, Glaser says that Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) would “undoubtedly” raise the issue of Taiwan with Clinton. She adds: “I think there will certainly be a desire on the part of Beijing to hear the new administration state its position respecting the one China policy and the three communiques, and perhaps say something in support of the improving relations between the two sides of the strait. And I would expect that Secretary Clinton would be eager to do that because we do see the process that is taking place, the eased tensions.”
Such interaction constitutes negotiations on Taiwan, even if they are informal, tentative and reach no agreement, as do Glaser’s hoped-for exchanges relating to China’s missiles and Taiwan’s international role: “I personally hope she [Clinton] will also say something about the need for China to follow up to some of President Ma Ying Jeou’s [sic] gestures with some movement on the military front in reducing the military buildup opposite Taiwan and also taking some more measures to support Taiwan’s desire for more meaningful participation in the international community.”
Glaser did not use the word “compromise,” but in paraphrasing her comments, the story correctly interpreted that any “face-saving gesture by the United States” amounted to a potential compromise, if only symbolic.
Finally, the story did not claim that Glaser used the term “pro-China,” which is not necessarily equivalent to “anti-Taiwan” in any case, as she implies. Here, it refers to the KMT government’s commitment to closer ties with China, as opposed to the Democratic Progressive Party’s wary, arguably “anti-China” stance. As such, “pro-China” is shorthand for the government’s policy direction and not a value judgment.
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