Thoughts on Taiwan's name change and bid to join the UN
Last year, I posted a rant on Chen Shui-bian's move to scrap the unification council that sought to ease relations between Taiwan and the mainland. The focus of the piece was exclusively on the dangers of Chen's actions, mainly drawing the U.S. and China into a confrontation that neither wants, thereby putting the stability of the current world order into jeopardy.
I still believe that Chen's moves are dangerous, for the reasons already stated. Today, there is an article in the Post, on his pursuit to not only change the Islands name, from the Republic of China to Taiwan, and his bid to apply for UN membership. These are things, he promised the U.S. that he would not attempt, a promise now broken and which again threatens to raise tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
Of course, my views on this are colored by my perception of America's interests in the region. The U.S. has given Taiwan a security guarantee, meaning that were China to invade Taiwan for any reason, the U.S. would be duty bound to intervene on Taiwan's side. China has said that it will not take any active measures to bring the Island under mainland control, and will accept the status quo. However, China has also made clear that any attempt by Taiwan to declare independence, such as changing its name and applying for UN membership, will force China to intervene militarily.
To tell the truth, this is a very difficult issue to deal with, after all how can we as a nation that promotes and encourages self-determination prevent Taiwan from seeking that which is every duly constituted government's right; independence. I mean, sure, they have defacto independence already and all we are arguing for in maintaining the status quo is the maintenance of an illusion; that Taiwan is still part of China. Yet, there is more at stake than simply the will of an island's 23 million people, but the future of the entire world. After all, a war between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, would mean the end of Globalization and the system it upholds. Much like WWI and WWII destroyed its main powers, a war between China and the U.S. would destroy us both.
Still, how far are we willing to go to protect Taiwan's right to determine its own future, versus Globalization's advance? Does this mean that we have to essentially give in to China in this instance? On the one hand, we don't want to end up in a way with China. On the other, we also don't want to tell a democratically elected government to go against the will of its population (70 percent support the referendum). Given our security guarantee to Taiwan, where do we find a middle ground that addresses China's concerns, while also allowing Taiwan to exercise its rights. Is there a middle ground? These are questions we will have to answer, and soon, because Taiwan is slated to vote on its name change by January 2008.
So far, the U.S. government has taken the position that Chen's moves are foolish and provocative, and as such he should rethink the course he has set for the island nation. To be fair, the U.S. position is informed by the political backdrop in which Chen is proposing this referendum. Like his earlier scrapping of the unification council, this move seems designed to curry political favor to Chen's party which has been tarnished by his term in office. The opposition, however, has fared no better, and is also supporting the measure. The reason for this, is that opposing the measure amounts to political suicide. Chen's move, which will come up during next year's presidential election seems designed to ensure his party's political victory. That means, that Chen, to an extent is using a measure he knows to be provocative to China, and which could lead to war, as a means of winning an internal political struggle. That is always a dangerous game, and this more so than others.
For China hawks, this is undoubtedly a dream come true, as they have been looking to China as their near peer for at least a decade. Rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait would give them all the ammunition they need to move the military from its focus on the lesser includeds that has characterized this War on Terror, to the new Cold War where high tech weaponry will prevail over the ground pounders.
Cold Worriers (as Tom Barnett calls them) are not the only ones gunning for a Cold War with China, Osama bin Laden would also welcome such a development because it would bring a new competitor to the Middle East to counteract American power, thereby giving al Qaeda enough space to push the U.S. out of the region. Barnett has argued against allowing Taipei to run our relationship with China for the reasons cited above. He has also argued for withdrawing America's defense guarantee to Taiwan as a means of moderating the island's behavior. In my last post, I argued for a similar move, not withdrawing the defense guarantee completely, but letting Taiwan know that it would apply only if China attacked them without any provocation. Absent that caveat, the U.S. would wash its hands of any defense guarantee. Given recent events, it may be time to start thinking about what we value more, Taiwan being able to call itself Taiwan without the parenthesis, or the current world order. Withdrawing, or clarifying the terms of our defense guarantee to Taiwan, would allow Taiwan to vote on its referendum (its right) with the knowledge that the repercussions of their actions are theirs, and theirs alone.
11 comments:
Lots of wrongness here.
First, the national unification council was defunct when it was scrapped, and hadn't met for years. Its budget was US$30 and it was entirely a symbolic organ. Had you paid attention to the news, you would have found out that Chen's move had zero effect on Taiwan-China relations, and the State Department's complaints were completely groundless.
These are things, he promised the U.S. that he would not attempt, a promise now broken and which again threatens to raise tensions across the Taiwan
Again, Chen did not break any promises, because his promises were contingent on improved behavior from China. But as we have seen, with the anti-succession law and other moves to suppress Taiwan, China is a serious problem.
The premise you base this article on is also incorrect. The US has never given Taiwan a security guarantee. The Taiwan Relations Act contains no such guarantee, and the US has remained ambiguous on whether it would actually intervene.
China has not said it would accept the status quo, which in any case it has constantly changed with a military buildup and other activities. It is interesting that you consider Chen a problem, but 1,000 Chinese missiles pointed at Taiwan do not move you at all. The real problem here is not Taiwan's democracy but China's expansionism.
Is there a middle ground? These are questions we will have to answer, and soon, because Taiwan is slated to vote on its name change by January 2008.
This is comprehensively incorrect. Taiwan's ruling party does not want a referendum on changing the nation's name, but on under what name to enter the UN. The official name of the island will remain the same. The referendum has been shot down at the moment.
That means, that Chen, to an extent is using a measure he knows to be provocative to China, and which could lead to war, as a means of winning an internal political struggle.
ROFL. China will invade when it wants to, and not because Chen attempted to enter the UN. Why would China invade when it has a veto and can kill any attempt to enter the UN? As you note this is aimed at internal politics. Your reaction is overwrought.
o far, the U.S. government has taken the position that Chen's moves are foolish and provocative,
Actually, that is only the State Department, which generally does whatever Beijing wants on the Taiwan question. Its position has become so craven that supporters of Taiwan on both the left and right have come to see it as a serious impediment on the Taiwan issue. The Bush Administration, focused on its defeat in iraq, has no time for Asia.
Bottom line, because I am out of time to write more, Chen is not "provocative." That is a propaganda line of Beijing's. Chen acts, and Beijing acts. Each side has equal agency, and Beijing chooses whether it will be provoked. For Beijing, "being provoked" is a policy choice it makes to manipulate unsuspecting foreigners. It uses this against Chen -- other moves by other actors it does not normally respond to. This is because it wants to paint Chen as a radical -- although he is a pragmatic, centrist politician who constantly takes fire from his right and left for not being radical enough. Hence, any idea that Chen is some kind of nut playing with war for internal political advantage is a propaganda construct of Beijing's that the State Department, for its own reasons, has also picked up.
I write extensively on these issues on my blog. Welcome to explore a view that is not a construct of Beijing's.
Michael
Michael,
You'd note that in the post I link to, I recognize that the Unification Council was defunct by the time it was scrapped. That is why I found Chen's move at the time to be unnecessary, particularly given the U.S.'s and China's warnings and reactions. The move did not have zero effect, it did raise tensions and only subsided once Washington got Chen to concede to change the phrasing from "abolish" to "cease to function."
As for Chen's promise, after being elected in 2000 he promised to keep the unification council intact. As the article cited in post also notes, Chen did promise to not do what he has done. Regardless, you are correct that China itself has also taken unhelpful actions. However, two wrongs don't make a right. I should note that at the time the anti-succession law was passed the US opposed it and tried unsuccessfully to get China to withdraw it.
It is interesting that you consider Chen a problem, but 1,000 Chinese missiles pointed at Taiwan do not move you at all. The real problem here is not Taiwan's democracy but China's expansionism.
Actually, I consider both a problem. China has maintained that posture for decades now, so it is not new. What has changed is the damage that such an event, as a military confrontation between Taiwan and China, would have on the world system. I do not view China as expansionist here. I think both sides have a point. Taiwanese do have a right to determine their own fate, however, given the historical context of how Taiwan came to be (KMT fleeing from China) the US telling China to leave Taiwan alone, would be akin to having another major power telling the US to leave Cuba alone, had the Confederacy fled and established itself in Cuba following the revolutionary war. Hence, this would not be expansionism, if given history, Cuba had held the US national security seat at the UN, instead of the US. This is the case of China and Taiwan, hence the need for caution in pursuing any road that may lead to war.
This is comprehensively incorrect. Taiwan's ruling party does not want a referendum on changing the nation's name, but on under what name to enter the UN.
This is mere wordplay, because the effect would be the same. My main point in the post, is that this is already the case, so why instigate Chinese ire when Taiwan already has what it claims to be seeking, to be recognized as Taiwan.
While the referendum has been shot down so far, Chen has vowed to press on.
The Taiwan Relations Act contains no such guarantee, and the US has remained ambiguous on whether it would actually intervene.
That may be, but thanks to our dear leader, that may not matter. In April 2001 he said unequivocally, that "the US would come to Taiwan's aid if attacked by China." That bounds us as much as any security guarantee does. While it is true that following those comments the President backed down and sought to return to the more nuanced position, that cat can't be put back in the bag. In your own blog, you also note the creation of a US-Taiwan military hotline, to "facilitate joint reaction to military clashes in the Taiwan Strait." That does little to keep the US out of any Taiwan-China conflict, and puts the US and China in danger of destroying this era of Globalization.
this is aimed at internal politics. Your reaction is overwrought.
It isn't because although aimed at internal political consumption, it does have cross-strait repercussions. So to the extent that this is the case, my reaction is not without merit.
Chen acts, and Beijing acts. Each side has equal agency, and Beijing chooses whether it will be provoked. Beijing, "being provoked" is a policy choice it makes to manipulate unsuspecting foreigners.
I agree, in like manner Chen chooses to be provoked by Chinese actions to carry out actions as those above. They are both at fault.
Frankly, in the end, I don't much care so long as the US is kept out of this fight. Hence my final sentence in the original post:
"Withdrawing, or clarifying the terms of our defense guarantee to Taiwan, would allow Taiwan to vote on its referendum (its right) with the knowledge that the repercussions of their actions are theirs, and theirs alone."
As for Chen's promise, after being elected in 2000 he promised to keep the unification council intact.
Those promises were contingent on good faith behavior on China's part. Go back and read the speech Chen made -- it is very clear. Abolishing the NUC had zero effect. War did not start and trade and investment continued apace. Washington thought it did wonderful things changing the wording, which Chen did as a concession to DC. Only Washington -- and really, only the State Department -- got tense, and they incorrectly. Does anyone even remember that he did that now? Only a few specialists....
,That may be, but thanks to our dear leader, that may not matter. In April 2001 he said unequivocally, that "the US would come to Taiwan's aid if attacked by China." That bounds us as much as any security guarantee does.
That's one has been "clarified" to death. Note that "come to aid" is ambiguous and offers many possible interpretations. The Bush Administration has since backed away from even that equivocal declaration.
"Withdrawing, or clarifying the terms of our defense guarantee to Taiwan, would allow Taiwan to vote on its referendum (its right) with the knowledge that the repercussions of their actions are theirs, and theirs alone."
The referendum is meaningless, will have no effect on cross-strait issues, will not provoke a war, and will cause nothing to happen, except perhaps the democracy side to get elected President again. None of the numerous things the US has gotten upset about have had any effect on anything. Life goes on, investment and trade grow, China and Taiwan continue their cultural and economic interchange....and the growth of democracy in Taiwan inspires change in China.
The war between China and Taiwan and and the US and Japan will come when China feels it can win, and not one moment before. It will not come because the DPP has a referendum on the UN entry under the name Taiwan -- note that while China bitches, it never takes concrete actions that it could take, such as denying visas to Taiwanese, seizing assets, and so on. In other words, the "rising tensions" gambit is just a game that China plays to get leverage over the western media and commentators, and to portray itself as the victim of madmen who want to live in a democratic and independent state.
The US is bound to be involved in any clash in east asia, and Taiwan is only one of many flashpoints. As China aspires to world leadership, at least one and probably more wars between the two powers are inevitable, unless the US own self-destruction in Iraq makes us so weak we have to give way, as the UK did after WWII. Clarifying the US position on whether it will come to Taiwan's aid will (a) only bind us to action and (b) enable CHina to more clearly discern what its moves should be. Everyone's interests are served by the current ambiguity.
Michael
Abolishing the NUC had zero effect.
Again, I noted that the NUC was moribund by the time Chen abolished it, my main question then was, if so, why take the extra step? Given his low approval ratings at the time, the answer was clear, internal political consumption. That is what moved me to write my original rant on Chen’s actions. This was not something he undertook due to China’s “bad” behavior, he did this to shore up his own political support. I thought his doing so was dangerous because it raised the prospect of him pursuing other objectives that increased tensions in the Taiwan Strait solely for his own political survival. While you are correct that trade and investment continued apace, the effect of this was to increase tensions in the Strait at a time when the US needed full Chinese cooperation on North Korea and other matters.
That's one has been "clarified" to death.
I don’t know why you even bother to state this, when I conceded as much in my own response and used it mainly as an example of how China could perceive future American actions, such as the creation of a US-Taiwan military hotline, to "facilitate joint reaction to military clashes in the Taiwan Strait," something that makes it more likely than not that the US would be involved in any future cross strait clash.
The referendum is meaningless, will have no effect on cross-strait issues, will not provoke a war, and will cause nothing to happen, except perhaps the democracy side to get elected President again.
Again, if meaningless, then why do it? It unnecessarily gives those on the Chinese side already predisposed to military confrontation ammunition to argue for one. At the same time, it gives those in our own military and political establishment, who have been salivating for a future war with China, a reason to continue with their wet dream.
To me, that’s a pointless exercise and is only understood when looked at within the context of Chen’s political calculations. Seeing how much our own democratic process has been damaged by politicians who use any foreign policy issue solely for their own selfish political purposes (i.e. GWOT, UN bashing, etc.) I fail to see how Chen’s actions are a victory for democracy.
The war between China and Taiwan and the US and Japan will come when China feels it can win, and not one moment before. The US is bound to be involved in any clash in east asia, and Taiwan is only one of many flashpoints. As China aspires to world leadership, at least one and probably more wars between the two powers are inevitable, unless the US own self-destruction in Iraq makes us so weak we have to give way, as the UK did after WWII.
This is a main source of our disagreement. I do not see war with China as inevitable, in fact, just the opposite. Due to China’s increasing interconnectivity to the Globalized economy, and its integration into the current system, it is an essential ally in preserving it. Will China rise and rival the US at some point? Yes. However, China is changing dramatically on the inside and they are still a long way off (even with increased military spending) from achieving that goal. Part of our job is to make sure that as they rise and benefit from the current system, they are bound to its rules. So long as they benefit from the system, they are less likely to want to destroy it. China is rising, and we need to accept that reality. The only question is whether we are going to engage in a counter-productive endeavor to prevent the inevitable, or whether we are going to engage it and prepare the strategic groundwork to ensure that its rise rather than challenge the system reinforces it. Your UK analogy is important in this respect, because although its weakness paved the way for the rise of the US, the UK also in some sense facilitated the rise of the US by engaging rather than antagonizing prior to WWII.
As for the many flashpoints, that is my point, why should we unnecessarily look for another.
Clarifying the US position on whether it will come to Taiwan's aid will (a) only bind us to action and (b) enable China to more clearly discern what its moves should be. Everyone's interests are served by the current ambiguity.
They are not, because our current policy allows politicians such as Chen to play with fire to gain political points. Clarifying the policy would tell China that the US would only come to Taiwan’s aid should China invade unprovoked…what constitutes provocation can be left undefined, but we will also make clear that any Taiwanese action that provokes such a confrontation would void America’s defense guarantee, again leaving undefined the meaning of such provocation. That sends a signal to both China and Taiwan that their actions will have bearing on any American response. I’m no diplomat, so my wording captures the nuance only to an extent, but I hope you get the point. Our current posture has allowed Chen too much leeway in defining our relationship with China.
Hello, I cruised over from michael turton's site.
You make an interesting point that "provocation" is a political tool actually used on both sides of the Strait. I never had the idea that Chen also chooses when to be "provoked" by China's ever-unsurprising missile buildup.
There are many real barriers to Taiwan de jure independence.
Barrier 1
Abolish NUC and NUG: CSB actually needed to abolish NUC and NUG in order to have the legal basis to change the Taiwan Constitution. But he backtracked to only get cease to function, and cease to apply. I’ll give him credit for being a crafty lawyer who can parse the 4 no’s, and come up with this wordplay to rally his party and further differentiate his party from the KMT. Cease to function, and cease to apply is not the same as cease to exist, which is the legal threshold to change the Constitution.
Barrier 2
Legislative hurdles: Since CSB doesn’t have a Legislative majority, it’s unrealistic that he can unilaterally change the Taiwan Constitution. The Taiwanese voters were smart enough to create Executive and Legislative gridlock, allowing CSB bravado, but not allowing the Legislative support he needed to truly advance his agenda.
Barrier 3
Not Enough UN member support: Taiwan has already seen more disintermediation, less FDIs, downgraded rating, institutional investors burning up liquidity, etc. because investors are nervous about alienating China. 170 countries support the One China policy. Taiwan has already failed 14 consecutive attempts to get the issue on the UNGA. Not enough UN members support Taiwan de jure independence. Furthermore, since CSB came to office, the number of UN members supporting Taiwan has actually decreased, not increased, so the trend favor no de jure independence for Taiwan.
Barrier 4
China impose soft power:
All these member countries that support One China certainly are looking out for self-interest since they see more benefits siding with China, than Taiwan. China's soft power is that it has 50% of GDP in savings, ready for domestic consumption. That's why there are plenty of companies around the world who want to do business with China because they want a piece of that domestic consumption. That leverage gives it considerable geopolitical power over Taiwan, and helps it maintain the support from 170 countries.
Barrier 5
World recognition of Taiwan as a de jure independence country: Taiwan would need enough member countries to recognize it. Since 170 countries currently recognize China and the One China Policy, and only 23 countries, mostly small insignificant countries in the South Pacific and Latin America, that is very unrealistic.
Barrier 6
China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with veto power. It is already unrealistic for Taiwan to get pass the first 5 barriers. These are the progressive hurdles against CSB’s ultimate goal for de jure independence. I give CSB credit for making a Pyrrhic political point to differentiate his party and rally his party. But it doesn't result in what he covets - de jure independence for Taiwan. I’ll give CSB style points as a crafty lawyer, but when it comes to achieving the substance of what he covets – zero, nada, zilch.
I think it's funny that those who protest China's missiles don't mention Taiwan's missiles pointed at China, or the stated claims by Taiwanese military to demolish Shanghai and Beijing once war starts, but I digress...
When Wilson first proposed his "self determination" idea, Robert Lansing immediately asked, at what level? Lansing was correct in pointing out at certain instances, self determination was irrelevant. It seems a self dtermined Taiwan would be irrelevant or even be economically suicidal, but no one cares to point that out either.
It's interesting that out of all these referendum proposals, no one has proposed a referendum to return all the precious Chinese art and antiques stored in Palace Museum in return for the right to be independent. When someone really puts that forward, then I know they're serious about independence from China.
Taiwan doesn’t have the political and economic leverage to do much but talk. US Neocons would love to see a war between China and Taiwan as that just means more war profiteering. But China is smart enough to use economic integration to defuse the bellicose rhetoric, and stop any real attempts at Taiwan de jure independence. As others pointed out, it’s economic suicide for Taiwan if it attempts to push pass the 4 no’s. This is really about CSB’s grandstanding to differentiate the DPP from the KMT. But there is not much he can accomplish in terms of substance since he face 6 very real barriers.
CSB’s mistake was over estimating US support. US have almost $9 trillion in debts, and estimated $45-70 trillion in unfunded liabilities. When you add the cost of Iraq, those debt numbers will increase further. Just like US is very much dependent on foreign oil, it is very much dependent on foreign financing. If you check the net sellers and buyers of US Treasuries, China and Brazil were the two main net buyers in the last year, as even the UK and Japan were net sellers. US need foreign financing, as it continues to run a budget deficit, and incur greater and greater debts. What that means is China gains leverage daily, so Taiwan’s coveted de jure independence becomes more unattainable. Countries around the world can read the writing on the wall, so you don’t see significant countries siding with Taiwan.
Lastly, the Taiwan Relation’s Act doesn’t obligate US to aid Taiwan if war ensued. But since the trend is quite favorable for China, there is no need to take any provocative acts, but just allow the economic adsorption of Taiwan to run its course. I feel that is the most peaceful way this will conclude.
Maybe a clarification of our interests would be helpful here? Here's my understanding:
1. We'd rather not go to war with Taiwan if we can help it. They're a fellow democracy, and a trading partner besides.
2. We'd rather not go to war with Beijing, either. They're also a trading partner, and powerful enough to be a tough opponent besides. Like NYinDC said, it would essentially be a world war.
Normally this would add up to staying out of it, but there's a kicker:
3. If they go to war, Taiwanese democracy and ability to trade with us would almost certainly get smashed. Trade partners of the two countries would also have their economies damaged by the disruption. Depending on how good a fight Taiwan put up, the mainland's own economy would almost certainly be damaged as well, enough to either encourage a shift back to a command economy, or to overthrow the communists altogether. From what little I know about Chinese history, the result would be a breakup of mainland China; how many of the pieces would be capable of trade or democracy?
In short, we don't necessarily care whether Taiwan is reabsorbed or becomes independent. We DO care under what circumstances the reabsorbsion (sp?) or independence happens.
Anon,
That's right, except the US has never considered going to war with Taiwan, rather any war with China would be over Taiwan. Like you said, such a war would essentially be a world war (at least in terms of the damage wrought on the US). It would also draw us away from the more important war against Islamic extremism, emboldening those elements that would take advantage of our weaker position. That is why I said, this would be akin to OBL's dream come true. The US would be so focused on war with China, that it would essentially be forced to militarily engage Iran and others to cut of oil flow to China. That would bring China into direct military confrontation with the US, because that oil is the life-blood of their economy. That would hurt us both, since the US depends heavily on Chinese economic growth to finance its own debt. This isn't even half of it, think of the damage such a confrontation would have on the global economy. Third-world economies that have seen spectacular growth due to China's rise would essentially become stagnant once again, hurting millions around the world. As such, the only alternative is as Anon put it: "just allow the economic absorption of Taiwan to run its course," and avoid any unnecessary provocative acts.
The US position should be to just support Status Quo, and allow the political gap between China and Taiwan to narrow, and the economic absorption will precede the political changes necessary to bring about a peaceful solution. Ultimately, we may be looking at some hierarchical sovereignty (Commonwealth, Federated, or some similar system) whereby China maintains country level representation around the world, like at UN, WHO, the eventual Asian Union, etc. and Taiwan retains some level of autonomy at the State level, or province level.
Typical American supporters of Taiwan will almost always use the Democracy card. But when you look at our foreign policies, both past and present, we have supported dictators, monarchies, overthrew democratically elected governments (Iran 1953), and attempted to overthrow a democratically elected government in Venezuela. We don’t truly support and foster Democracies fairly and uniformly. Many in the world can see our historical and current hypocrisies regarding our foreign policies, so this self-interest assertion to care about Taiwan’s Democracy is not genuinely believable. It is more likely that US is just using Taiwan as a hedge to check China, which doesn’t bode well for being an honest broker for peace.
If US truly want to do some good, support Status Quo, so both China and Taiwan can work out their differences at their own timetable, without any interloper’s interference. US will need China’s help in many other matters besides financing USA's massive debts and unfunded liabilities.
This week, we are reminded that the six party talks, with China’s help in getting North Korea back to the table, has resulted in NK shutting down their nuclear reactor. That’s a great first step, as China and US can do much more together, and should not allow the Taiwan issue to sidetrack much more important world issues that need their undivided attention.
Post a Comment