July 28, 1999	atimes.com

China COMMENT: Understanding the China-Taiwan dispute By Col. Monte Bullard (Ret.) * MONTEREY, Calif. - Taiwan v. China is like Roe v. Wade. Those on either side of the issue can make legitimate, rational arguments to support their positions. But while the debate over a woman's right to an abortion may inflame passions in the United States, the disagreement between China and Taiwan over the island's political status could, in the long-run, have far more serious consequences for the average American. The Taiwan problem could conceivably lead to a full-scale war between the United States and China. The latest brouhaha, which began when Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui tried to redefine the island's relationship with the mainland, is but a prelude to potential disaster. While Taiwan has enjoyed a de facto independent status since 1949, it is formally recognized as a part of China - by its own official position, by China's leaders and by formal U.S. policy. In recent years, it has increasingly attempted to act as a truly independent state. The question is whether Taiwan's leadership will continue to push the envelope to a point short of de jure independence that will be intolerable to Beijing. If that point is reached, there is little doubt that China will react - probably militarily. The United States must be prepared for such a scenario. In the past, every time Taiwan has taken a step towards an independent political status, Beijing has responded with some form of saber-rattling. And that, in turn, has sparked a debate in the U.S. Congress that has served to encourage those who favor formal independence for Taiwan. This inevitably angers Beijing even further and leads to a deterioration in U.S.-China relations. An example is passage of the U.S. - Taiwan Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation Act on November 6, 1997, about a year and a half after China conducted missile exercises near Taiwan. While the U.S. said it was acting "to implement the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act concerning the stability and security of Taiwan and United States cooperation with Taiwan on the development and acquisition of defensive military articles," passage of the act clearly contributed to instability and insecurity in the Taiwan Strait and planted the seeds for a regional arms race. It is vital that the U.S. Congress break this cycle of action and reaction by focusing its debate on the real political issues that are at stake between Taiwan and China. Even if China should aim additional missiles at the island or conduct military amphibious exercises to display its capability to invade Taiwan, the U.S. should not necessarily respond by moving to strengthen Taiwan's military capability. We must understand that China's military threats are designed to cause political reactions in the U.S. and Taiwan. Our narrow focus on military responses misses the point entirely. The Taiwan Relations Act insures U.S. involvement in guaranteeing Taiwan's security, so it's at best naive for Americans to say that current problem must be worked out solely by the Chinese. Any solution will have to include some form security guarantee from the United States. But the concept of security must be expanded to include political and economic issues as well as military security. It must include three-way confidence-building-measures. U.S. foreign-policy leaders must make clear and unequivocal statements about Taiwan's responsibility to help create the conditions in which the policy of "one country, two systems" can be achieved without resorting to the use of force. U.S. foreign policy must focus on engaging both China and Taiwan on political factors that build an environment conducive to the success of the cross-straits talks. President Lee's statement about wanting "state-to-state" relations with China shows how complicated the debate can become. The fact that "nation-state", "nation," "state," and "country" are all the same word in Chinese should give us an indication that a deeper understanding of the political slogans and concepts being used is required on our part. This problem is political rather than military in nature. Our focus must be on defining political relationships that will insure security, not security relationships that will protect U.S. domestic politics. (Col. Monte Bullard [Ret.] was the first U.S. Army attache to Beijing and is currently interim director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CA. This article was distributed by The Global Beat Syndicate, a service of New York University's Center for War, Peace, and the News Media. (c) 1999 New York University. All Rights Reserved.)

Front |China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT |Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive Cheap Holiday Packages to San Diego California

back to the top ©1999 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

China Chinese Sex News | Asian Sex Gazette