NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
March 30, 2005
R.O.C., R.I.P.?
We are getting used to these democracy demonstrations in Kiev Beirut La Paz Bishkek and wherever. There should have been no surprise to see a million people on the streets of Taipei in the "Republic of China" over the weekend demanding democracy. The only thing odd about their demonstration is that they were demanding to keep a democracy they already have. The demonstrations were really directed towards the "People's Republic of China" across the narrow Taiwan Strait which has now aimed more than 800 surface-to-surface missiles at the little island: almost enough to sink it. The Red Chinese continue to build this inventory as once the Soviet Union and the United States continuously escalated their batteries for "mutual assured destruction". But again something is odd. No missiles are being pointed the other way. Taiwan takes only defensive measures. The quickest glance at the map will show that Taiwan cannot possibly threaten the existence of mainland China. The particular issue was the passage earlier this month by the rubber-stamp People's Assembly in Beijing of a bill authorizing the military invasion of Taiwan should the dictatorship be annoyed by the behaviour of any of Taiwan' s elected politicians. The bill was designed not to be read as an empty gesture. Taiwan's problems are complicated by what amounts to treason by its old Kuomintang Party. For the third time recently an official delegation of that party has gone to play cozy in Beijing with official representatives of the Chinese Communist Party. It is genteel treason: of the kind that comes with democratic politics in which the party of opposition sells out vital national interests in order to improve its electoral position at home -- by promising anxious voters a "peace in our time" that simply is not available. Chamberlains are alas a more natural by-product of electoral politics than Churchills. The latter tend to be selected only once the cliff-edge is crossed. The Taiwanese themselves must find the spine to resist mainland pressure before the eyes of the world. Of course even if they do they might still endure the fate of Poland. Alas the result of this genteel treason is to cancel the effect of huge democracy rallies. It is to enable an aggressive power armed with overwhelming force and having no domestic dissenters to consider to exploit the greatest weakness of a democracy: fear. The "butchers of Tiananmen" (never forget this) are indeed trying to divide and conquer their tiny imaginary adversary. It is "state terrorism" in its most comprehensive form. This I still think is the real aim of Chinese Communist policy: not to invade Taiwan but through intimidation to achieve a peaceful capitulation. And they count on the rest of the world to choose peaceful capitulation on Taiwan's behalf. Polls in Australia and elsewhere already show irritation not with Communist tyranny but with the Bush administration out of the suspicion that President Bush might stand his ground. People: that's the biggest problem with democracy. Will the Bush administration be nevertheless as stalwart in defending democracy in Taiwan as it has been in advancing democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq? Can it even afford to be? How can the U.S. with its limited military resources already stretching risk confronting a power that is vastly more substantial than all of its Middle Eastern foes? And has any policy of defending Taiwan been undermined already by secret arrangements the U.S. felt necessary to make with Beijing in return for help in dealing with the North Koreans? To answer the last question first I don't think so. This is pure speculation on my part but the White House was stocked from the beginning with Cold Warriors extremely wary of the Chinese threat and of the dangers of d?tente-like gestures. I am simply guessing that the Colin Powell State Department was not allowed to make a mistake to which a Condoleezza Rice State Department would be less tempted. The answer so far as we can see it "from the ground" has been "speak softly flourish the stick". U.S. naval deployments are sending the right message to Beijing and U.S. diplomats are probably being quietly unambiguous about the American commitment to Taiwan. But it is a good question whether in the absence of stiff presidential rhetoric the Chinese will interpret this as anything more than bluff. My own reading of the larger picture is that the U.S. cannot afford to abandon Taiwan; and neither can Japan incidentally. This is because the consequences would be much greater than the loss of one little island. A China that has swallowed Taiwan has not only established its right to a chokehold on energy supplies for Korea and Japan but has also imposed itself as the incontestable hegemon of Asia and thus a superpower of the same rank with the United States itself. I think the Bush administration grasps this. At the very least I pray that they have grasped it. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top