The
Chinese, Kagan informs us, will not bother to invade the
island. They will simply use their short-range ballistic
missiles to knock out "Taiwan’s air defenses and early
warning systems, destroy its command, control and communications
centers... thereby neutralizing the Taiwanese air force
as well as its naval ports." Within minutes the Taiwanese
would be left with no choice but to sue for peace. Why?
Because the United States, hell-bent as ever on appeasing
China, did not give them the wherewithal to defend themselves.
"The psychology of appeasement convinces peace-loving
peoples that any effort to deter a future conflict is too
provocative and therefore too dangerous," Kagan rumbles
portentously. "The appeasing nation comes to believe
that defenselessness and lack of preparation for a conflict
is not only safer but a sign of maturity. And then the war
starts."
Kagan
and Kristol repeat this tiresome mantra all the time. It
is forever Munich, forever 1938. Just who are these "peace-loving
peoples"? Americans? In recent times they have waged
more armed conflicts than anyone else. Who, other than the
habitues of the fever swamps of the "neo-conservative"
think-tanks, has ever believed that "defenselessness"
is a "sign of maturity"? Certainly not the endlessly-maligned
Neville Chamberlain, who presided over a massive British
arms buildup. What anyone who is not a retarded adolescent
does argue is that one "sign of maturity" is not
to resort to force the moment you discover that some country’s
interests do not immediately coincide with yours.
Some
years ago, Kagan and Kristol propounded the bizarre theory
that the only way conservatives can come to power in America
is by banging the drums of war. In their 1996
Foreign Affairs article "Toward a Neo-Reaganite
Foreign Policy," they argued: "The remoralization
of America at home ultimately requires the remoralization
of American foreign policy.... For conservatives to preach
the importance of upholding the core elements of the Western
tradition at home, but to profess indifference to the fate
of American principles abroad, is an inconsistency that
cannot help but gnaw at the heart of conservatism....A true
‘conservatism of the heart’ ought to emphasize both personal
and national responsibility, relish the opportunity for
national engagement, embrace the possibility of national
greatness, and restore a sense of the heroic, which has
been sorely lacking in American foreign policy – and
American conservatism in recent years....Deprived of the
support of an elevated patriotism, bereft of the ability
to appeal to national honor, conservatives will ultimately
fail in their effort to govern America. And Americans will
fail in their responsibility to lead the world." No
matter how often Kristol and Kagan parrot words like "Reaganite"
or "conservative" or "national greatness,"
nothing in their demented program to force Washington’s
diktats down the rest of the world’s throat can be
remotely described as "Reaganite" or "conservative."
As for "national greatness," it is hard to recall
a time when Americans were held in as low esteem just about
everywhere as they are today.
But
back to Taiwan. After much reflection and agonizing, Kagan
arrives at a conclusion. The time has come to stop appeasing
China. "The only way to avert a future Chinese attack
on Taiwan is to deter it right now." Sell the Taiwanese
a few guided missile destroyers equipped with the Aegis
radar system, start conducting joint military exercises
and plan for war. Happily for Kagan, his proposal almost
certainly will lead to war. The Chinese, strange creatures
that they are, care about their national sovereignty. Editorial
writers warn the Chinese that unless they abandon plans
to reincorporate Taiwan they will jeopardize their membership
of the World Trade Organization. But it is only our elites
who enthuse inanely about the WTO. The Chinese could not
care less about it. They run a trade surplus with the United
States; they use a non-convertible currency; and they mistrust
foreign investment.
About
Taiwan, however, they care passionately. Even so, they have
been remarkably tolerant. It is hard to believe that a US
Government in similar circumstances would propose a "one
country, two systems" solution. It is hard to believe
that a US Government would interfere as little as China
has in the day-to-day affairs of a rebellious island. But
there are limits to China’s tolerance. It suspects, with
some justification, that the United States arms Taiwan with
a view to making the island one day strong enough to declare
independence. US Government officials may insist that they
support the peaceful reunification of China. But if you
believe that you will probably also believe that the United
States went the extra mile at Rambouillet last year to prevent
war.
Last
month, the Beijing Government published a White Paper, "The
One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue." The
US media went crazy. The Chinese, we were told, were becoming
belligerent. Allegedly, the mainland was ready to go to
war not only if Taiwan declared independence, but also if
negotiations for reunification dragged on endlessly. However,
the document did not quite say that. What it actually said
was that, "If a grave turn of events occurs leading
to the separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or if
Taiwan is invaded and occupied by foreign countries, or
if the Taiwan authorities refuse... the peaceful settlement
of cross-Straits reunification through negotiations, then
the Chinese Government will only be forced to adopt all
drastic measures possible, including the use of force, to
safeguard China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity."
In other words, the policy has not changed at all. In addition,
Beijing conceded that there were "differences between
Taiwan on the one hand and Hong Kong and Macao on the other."
After peaceful reunification, it was " prepared to
apply a looser form of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy
in Taiwan than in Hong Kong and Macao."
Sounds
reasonable? Not to our pundits and editorial writers. According
to the Washington Post, the time for US strategic
ambiguity was past. Taiwan is becoming "more and more
democratic and China remains a dictatorship. Most Taiwanese
understandably don’t want to be swallowed by a repressive
state, and unlike in the past – when Taiwan was governed
by dictators of its own – their views on independence
shape national policy....The administration has in the past
bent pretty far to China’s wishes....The US response to
China’s latest challenge should be shaped...by the need
not to say or do anything that China could present to the
next Administration as US acquiescence in its new policy.
Strategic ambiguity does, at times, have its uses; this
is a moment for strategic clarity." The notion that
the China-Taiwan issue is all about democracy was echoed
by the Boston Globe: "The lesson is clear: China
and Taiwan can only be unified when democracy comes to the
mainland."
The
Taiwan issue has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.
The United States would not accept the secession of Southern
California should it – in a few years time – vote
to join Mexico. No matter how overwhelmingly the secessionists
may win their referendum, there is no right in international
law to secede. At a minimum, the US Government would argue
– just before it sent in the cruse missiles and B-2
bombers – that in any vote on secession all Americans,
not just the inhabitants of Southern California, have to
take part. If it is the wishes of the people that are to
be of paramount concern, then what about the wishes of the
people of mainland China? Their votes would easily overwhelm
those of the Taiwanese.
Taiwan
has never existed as an independent state. China’s sovereignty
over Taiwan is recognized by almost everyone in the world,
including the United States. Continued US attempts to meddle
in China’s affairs and to pretend that somehow the future
status of Taiwan has yet to be determined can only provoke
the Chinese. And the United States knows from its own history
how bloody wars of secession can be.
