Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Richard Bush pointed to the essential dilemma in cross-strait relations last week when he questioned why Beijing is still deploying missiles to threaten Taiwan despite the "reconciliation" policy of President Ma Ying-jeou and his Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) government.
Unfortunately, Bush, now director for East Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, failed to note that it is precisely the capitulationist nature of the KMT's "reconciliation" with the Chinese Communist Party that has placed Taiwan in an increasingly unfavorable position in dealings with the PRC. The KMT has been conducting negotiations with its former bitter rival since KMT honorary chairman Lien Chan embarked on a kowtowing visit to CCP General Secretary and PRC State Chairman Hu Jintao in Beijing in April 2005 and Ma has made the "reconciliation" and an unilateral "diplomatic truce" official policy since taking office in May 2008.
Nevertheless, the Chinese government has never renounced its self-assumed "right" to use military means to coerce Taiwan into "unification," much less halt its increasing deployment of an estimated 1,500 missiles and other offensive forces aimed at Taiwan.
This inconvenient fact has left foreign diplomats and analysts perplexed over what is driving Beijing's decision to continue preparations for war amidst Ma's apparent "peace" offensive.
Possible answers include uncertainty that Ma might not embrace the CCP's goal of ultimate unification without extra "persuasion," a fear that the opposition Taiwan-centric Democratic Progressive Party may win back Taiwan's governance or Beijing's long-term goal to exclude United States influence in cross-strait affairs. The last scenario seems to be the dominant thinking in the U.S., as reflected by a call by a senior senator to President Barack Obama's Democratic administration to reconsider its arms sales policy to Taiwan in exchange for a possible redeployment of PRC missiles.
During congressional hearings on June 15, Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, asked Secretary of Defence Robert Gates: "What significant action could China take to ease its military posture in the Strait in a manner that was substantive enough for you to reconsider future arms sales to Taiwan, which are a substantial irritant and will continue to be a substantial irritant in my view?" Feinstein also related that, during her recent visit to Beijing, PRC leaders indicated their willingness to reposition, but not remove, some of the missiles.
Besides reiterating the legal necessity to implement the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act which requires the U.S. government to provide necessary and defensive weapon to Taiwan, Gates replied that even though Taiwan had "reached out," there remained "extraordinary Chinese deployment of all manner of cruise and ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan on the Chinese side of the Strait." Gates also remarked that arms sales to Taiwan were a "political decision" mandated by the TRA and that any change in that policy would be up to the U.S. political leadership, namely the president, and not the Department of Defence.
Moreover, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg strongly denied the following day that Beijing had ever offered to redeploy its forces facing Taiwan if Washington would stop selling arms to Taipei.
Senators from Beijing
The Obama administration merits approval for its timely reaffirmation of its policy of continuously providing defensive weaponry to Taiwan in accordance with the TRA despite Beijing's blatant attempt to use a U.S. senator to float this trial balloon.
Feinstein's statements do not reflect any congressional consensus to trade a cessation of arms sale to Taiwan for the PRC's removal or "repositioning" of its estimated 1,500 missiles arrayed against Taiwan, but the factors behind her floating of this dangerous proposal cannot be ignored.
First, Beijing has clearly upgraded its diplomatic lobbying skills and now appeals directly to U.S. congressional representatives in their own constituencies by applying economic leverage in the distribution of major commercial contracts and procurement missions.
Moreover, handcuffed by Ma's self-imposed "diplomatic truce," Taiwan has failed to contest the PRC's more sophisticated lobbying campaigns.
Second, the PRC leadership has never ceased its drive to push Washington to ink a "fourth communique" aimed at watering down the TRA's legal mandate. Beijing has also taken full advantage of Washington's expression of "respect" for the PRC's insistence on its "sovereignty and territorial integrity" made in the "Joint Statement" signed by U.S. President Obama and PRC State Chairman Hu last November.
Beijing cited the "Joint Statement" in its shrill protest over December's US$6 billion defensive weapons systems to Taiwan and spin U.S. arms sales to our country into a "substantial irritant" in Sino-American relations. Last but not least, the Ma administration itself bears most of the responsibility for this worrying development as its excessive touting of the fantasy of a "diplomatic truce" with Beijing has disarmed our diplomats in the face of the PRC's campaign for global "de jure recognition" of its claim to Taiwan.
In sum, the overly craven nature of Ma's "reconciliation" with Beijing now endangers the future of U.S. - Taiwan military relations and Taiwan's very security.
Source: Taiwan News Online - Editorial 2010/06/21
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
