We
heard a grotesque outpouring of Washingtonspeak this week
in response to President Bush’s remarks on ABC’s "Good
Morning America" about Taiwan. Bush had said that the
United States was ready to come to the aid of Taiwan by
whatever means necessary. He was asked whether "you,
in your own mind, feel that if Taiwan were attacked by China,
do we have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?"
Bush responded, "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand
that. Yes, I would." The interviewer asked: "With
the full force of American military?" And Bush replied:
"Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."
These remarks came two days after the announcement of a
$4 billion US arms package, which included four Kidd class
destroyers, eight diesel-powered submarines and 12 P3C Orion
antisubmarine planes. Bush put off for the time being a
decision on the sale of the Aegis naval air defense system
to Taiwan. The Aegis system has the potential of being developed
into a theater missile defense system. However, the submarines,
if equipped with cruise missiles, are capable of hitting
targets on the mainland. They therefore improve significantly
Taiwan’s military capabilities. There have also been reports
this week that the Bush Administration may let Taiwan President
Chen Shui-bian meet congressmen during a stopover in the
United States.
Now
Bush’s comments were ridiculous. The United States will
not do much help Taiwan if China decided to take it over
for a very simple reason. By no stretch of the imagination
does Taiwan mean as much to us as it does to the Chinese.
True, Kosovo does not mean as much to the United States
as it does to Serbia. But then China is not Serbia. Washington
can huff and puff about democracy. Washington can bluster
away about the Butchers of Beijing. The truth is, China
could seize Taiwan without too much difficulty. That China
has not done so has nothing to do with the alleged chilling
effect of empty US threats. It is because Taiwan for the
time being is very useful as a source of investment. If
the United States seriously intended to respond to a Chinese
attack on Taiwan, its only recourse would be to attack the
mainland with missiles – a reckless gesture that even
the boys at the Weekly Standard would not contemplate
seriously, at least not in public.
The
Washington media went into their usual let’s-spend-the-rest-of-the-week-feasting-on-trivia
mode, obsessing over the issue of whether Bush intended
to signal a change in policy or merely shoved his foot in
his mouth. According to a
story in the Washington Post: "The question
buzzing today in Washington diplomatic and political circles:
Did President Bush intend to modify 30 years of US-China
policy with his startling comments about Taiwan…or did he
inadvertently wander off course. The consensus is that Bush
didn’t anticipate the furor his comments would ignite, and
wasn’t fully prepared to navigate the arcane diplomatic
terminology that has outlined China’s and Taiwan’s uneasy
relationship for years." Now, it is extremely unlikely
that a skilled politician like Bush simply blundered like
a delinquent schoolboy who had neglected to prepare for
class. Bush knew what he was saying and knew the impact
his words would have coming as they did two days after the
arms package. The United States was simply throwing its
weight around like a bully hoping against hope that no one
will dare call its bluff.
The
Washington Post was very excited: "There are
good reasons for the administration to consider a more explicit
commitment to Taiwan’s defense. Even as the island and its
20 million people have moved to a democratic government
in the past few years, Beijing has been assembling the air
and naval forces that it would need to mount a serious attack."
Moreover, the paper went on, "if carefully prepared
and delivered in the appropriate context, a more open US
commitment to Taiwan might, along with the weapons, increase
stability in the region by checking the growing belligerence
of Beijing’s military and removing the ambiguity that in
some situations might increase rather than decrease the
chance of conflict." Washington blowhards enthusiastically
seized on the idea that an empty promise to go to war with
China would help promote peace and stability in Asia. "I
think the President’s straightforward, courageous and unambiguous
statement will guarantee that hostility in the Taiwan Strait
will not take place," blustered Tom Lantos.
Moreover,
a number of the Bush people had for years been calling on
the United States to be more threatening with the Chinese.
In November 1999 Paul D. Wolfowitz, currently Deputy Defense
Secretary, said that the US policy of purposeful ambiguity
has led to war. "I don’t believe that in the case of
Taiwan today that anything is gained by leaving any doubt
in the minds of Communist China that the use of force against
Taiwan would be met with a strong American response,"
he declared. Wolfowitz did not care if the Chinese were
threatening to use force in response to a Taiwanese declaration
of independence. The main thing is that America lays it
on the line for the Chinese. In 1999 the Heritage Foundation
issued a statement on Taiwan, signed by a number of prominent
Republicans now holding important posts in the Bush Administration:
"It has…become essential that the United States make
every effort to deter any form of Chinese intimidation of
the Republic of China on Taiwan and declare unambiguously
that it will come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of an
attack or blockade against Taiwan." Note again that
the commitment is not conditional on Taiwan’s not declaring
itself independent. The signers included current Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage; Paul Wolfowitz, of
course; the current Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of
staff Lewis Libby; John Bolton, in the running for an undersecretary
of state position; and Richard Perle, former assistant defense
secretary under Ronald Reagan.
In
contrast to the "on to Beijing" crowd there are
the "old China hands," usually connected in some
way with Henry Kissinger. They are the practitioners of
the policy of "nuance". In other word, they are
under the impression that everyone is much stupider than
they are. "The language on Taiwan is very arcane, very
nuanced, and people are apt to make mistakes with it,"
explained former ambassador to China Winston Lord. According
to Senator John Kerry: "We have been deliberately vague
about the circumstances under which we would come to Taiwan’s
defense, not only to discourage Taiwan from drawing us in
by declaring independence but also to deter a Chinese attack
by keeping Beijing guessing". We know we are lying
when we say that we will come to Taiwan’s defense. But the
rest of the world is unable to figure this out. The Chinese
must be kept guessing. For some bizarre reason this is believed
to add to "stability". Common sense would suggest
the opposite. It is precisely when states are unable to
guess what their adversaries will do that they are liable
to make mistakes.
This
is a favorite argument of the Kristol-Kagan-Wolfowitz "anti-appeasement"
brigade. But they are quite wrong. Usually states have a
pretty good idea how others will respond to their actions.
For more than fifty years China has known that the United
States has been no more prepared to go to war for Taiwan
than it was to take on the Russians over Hungary in 1956
or over Czechoslovakia in 1968. During this time China has
neither invaded, nor threatened to invade, Taiwan. China
only behaves belligerently the moment it suspects the United
States is helping Taiwan towards independence. Therefore,
experience would suggest that the best way to keep peace
across the Taiwan Strait is to make sure the Chinese do
not suspect that we are surreptitiously paving the way for
Taiwanese secession. But this is where "nuance"
comes in. We know we are pushing Taiwan for independence.
Why else are we selling them arms? But the Chinese don’t
know this. We say we support a "One China" policy.
But we don’t really mean it. And the Chinese are too stupid
to figure out that we don’t really mean it.
In any case, even if the United States threatened to go
to war over Taiwan and really meant what it said, it would
not do any good. The Chinese would still probably take their
chances and seize Taiwan. In August 1914, the Germans had
little doubt that Britain would enter the war if their troops
marched through Belgium. Yet they still believed that a
thrust into France through the Low Countries in the hope
of a quick victory in the West was a gamble worth taking.
In 1939 Hitler did not that Britain would go to war over
Poland. Why else would he have signed the non-aggression
pact with Stalin just a week before his attack? Yet he still
believed that the gamble was worth taking.
The
point has to be repeated again and again: There is nothing
whatsoever the United States can do to save Taiwan should
China decide to take over the island short of launching
a nuclear attack. The paunchy, flak-jacketed table-thumpers
of the Weekly Standard are crazy but even they might
hesitate before bringing civilization, as we know it, to
an end over Taiwan. This of course why the American Right
is so crazily enthusiastic about the Missile Defense System.
With America largely invulnerable to retaliation we can
happily go off and pick fights with the Chinese and even
the Russians.
While
the United States proffers empty guarantees to Taiwan, it
is busily pushing for the enlargement of NATO. The United
States had promised at the time of Germany’s reunification
that there would be no expansion of NATO. Then it was just
going to be Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic. Now NATO
membership is being promised to the Baltic States, in addition
to Rumania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia.
As in the case of Taiwan, this of course has nothing to
do with the United States exerting its dominance over power
over another continent. It has nothing to do with the creation
of forward bases to project US power over Central Europe,
Central Asia and the Middle East. It has nothing to do with
eliminating Russia once and for all as a major power with
negligible influence in Asia and none at all over Europe.
No, the enlargement of NATO, it turns out is being pushed
by Washington so as to reassure the Russians about the security
of their western borders. Here is former Clinton official
Anthony J. Blinken writing in the New York Times:
"When President Clinton opened NATO’s doors in 1994,
some predicted a crisis with Russia. That did not occur,
mainly because the Kremlin understood that NATO enlargement
did not threaten Russia’s interests…The Bush administration,
if it remains committed to enlarging NATO, needs to lay
the groundwork with Russia. It should begin by toning down
its rhetoric." Here then is choice Washingtonspeak.
The Russians are really dumb. They can’t figure out what
NATO enlargement is about. So let’s fool them "by toning
down" the rhetoric.
Blinken
goes on: "The Bush administration should make the case
to Moscow that NATO enlargement to the Baltic states would
advance Russia’s own interests as well as ours. Russia wants
stability along its Western borders, neighbors who treat
their Russian minorities with respect and prosperous trading
partners. NATO enlargement promotes such developments. Aspirants
know that strong democratic structures, respect for minority
rights and free markets are necessary for inclusion in the
club; just as important, they are necessary to remain members
in good standing." Thus ceding control over access
to the Baltic Sea to Russia’s adversaries, loss of the vast
Baltic naval and intelligence infrastructure, sudden vulnerability
to NATO’s military and espionage resources just a few miles
away are really mere trifles. The Russians will be able
to rest easy that their nationals living in the Baltic States
will be well looked after by our NATO humanitarians. This
is also a lie. We have seen in Kosovo just how committed
NATO really is to securing the rights of peoples who are
out of favor in the capitals of the Great Powers.
While
the rulers of the former Warsaw Pact countries regular trot
around to Washington or Brussels pleading to be let in to
the illustrious NATO club, their long-suffering populace
is less than overwhelmed. According to a recent poll, less
than 50 percent of Slovenians support the country’s membership
of the European Union and NATO. Recently, the Bulgarian
parliament approved a five-year agreement to allow NATO
troops unimpeded access to its territory in case of a crisis
in the Balkans. Popular opposition to NATO was neither here
nor there. The Rumanians authorities are also pressing hard
for NATO membership, the will of the people be damned. According
to the Institute for War and Peace Reporting: "A team
of NATO officials last week completed a four-day evaluation
of Romania’s Alliance credentials. It concluded that Bucharest
had made real progress in the judicial, constitutional,
political, economic, and security fields, but there were
still areas that needed improvement." Note then that
NATO membership implies that the most fundamental issues
of sovereignty are simply ceded away. They are to be decided
elsewhere. The report goes on: " ‘NATO perception of
Rumania should have changed following the…war in Yugoslavia
and new threats to the Balkan region,’ said Cornel Codita,
a military analyst and professor of international studies
at the University of Bucharest. He says the US, which objected
to Bucharest NATO membership bid in 1997, has shifted its
view of Rumania as an Alliance partner after the latter’s
support during the Kosovo conflict, ‘During the bombardment
of Yugoslavia in 1999, Rumania acted like a member of the
Alliance: allowed NATO bombers to use its airspace and fulfilled
other obligations such as maintaining the oil embargo on
Belgrade.’
Back
then, there was widespread domestic opposition to the government’s
pro-NATO stance – many here siding with Serbia and
the defiant nationalism of Slobodan Milosevic." In
other words, it is of the essence of NATO membership that
democracy be cast aside. What matters is that elites accept
the rules of Washingtonspeak. Whatever serves the interests
of Washington serves the interests of humanity, even if
humanity has yet to figure this out.
One
man who has thoroughly mastered Washingtonspeak is Yugoslav
President Vojislav Kostunica. Having denounced NATO for
its "depleted conscience" in January, he turned
around a couple of weeks later and announced that he could
quite easily envisage Yugoslavia becoming a member of NATO.
Of course he phrased in his usual evasive way: "Partnership
for Peace", he declared, "is not" –
yes, you guessed it – "a priority for us, but
it is not excluded and has been discussed. I would need
more time and a change of attitude before thinking about
it." It is always a pleasure to find lord and vassal
to be so happily of one mind.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
Send
contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your
Contributions are now Tax-Deductible
