US-China relations have taken a sharp dive after Washington’s decision to sell a range of weapons to Taiwan to defend itself against Chinese attack.
The proposed sale has been submitted to Congress for approval, which is expected to follow.
The weapons are said to include advanced capability Patriot missiles, known as PAC-3 missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters and two minesweepers.
Beijing has predictably hit the roof, warning the US of a “serious negative impact” on ties between the two countries.
More enigmatic, if not ominous, are remarks made by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei (何亞非), who said the proposed arms deal would lead to an “aftermath both sides would not prefer,” and asked the US to reverse its “erroneous” decision.
However, looking at it rationally, there is nothing new in the US’ decision to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan.
OBLIGED
It is a continuation of US policy under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979, under which the US is legally obliged to help Taiwan defend itself.
And, according to a US State Department spokesperson: “Such sales contribute to maintaining security and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”
Which seems to be an accurate assessment, as even under a China-friendly Taiwanese government led by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Beijing has not removed its estimated 1,000-plus missiles targeted at Taiwan.
Indeed, when he was running for the presidency, Ma had pledged to bring about a security agreement with China to deal with Beijing’s military threat.
However, nothing has happened in this regard, despite the Ma government’s initiatives to expand relations with China.
The US has sold defensive weapons to Taiwan in the past, and it will continue to do so under the TRA. China has always objected to arms sales to Taiwan, but this time its objections are somewhat ominous in their rhetoric.
Why is Beijing acting like this?
Because it has begun to overestimate its global power.
EQUAL BILLING
Ever since US President Barack Obama took power last year, the US gave China equal billing in managing crucial global issues like the financial crisis, climate change and nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea.
This gave rise to talk of the US and China as the “G2” powers.
During her China visit, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thanked China for continuing to buy US treasury notes and bonds in spite of the economic crisis.
Around the same time, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) expressed concern about the security of China’s investments in US currency.
Seemingly emphasizing a new era in US-China relations, Clinton said in Beijing that China’s human rights issues would not derail progress in other areas of their bilateral relations.
It is not surprising, therefore, that China started to overestimate its global power and behave as though the US were a client state, and that when the proposed US arms sale to Taiwan was announced, Beijing hit the roof with all kinds of retaliatory threats.
The Chinese wolf will keep huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the house down for quite some time to come, but eventually it should settle down.
There is always a danger of things getting out of control, however, in this game of brinkmanship.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS