The 2008 Republican Party Platform was released earlier this month, including positions on both Taiwan and China.

First Taiwan:

Our policy toward Taiwan, a sound democracy and economic model for mainland China, must continue to be based upon the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act. We oppose any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo in the Taiwan straits on the principle that all issues regarding the island’s future must be resolved peacefully, through dialogue, and be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China were to violate these principles, the U.S., in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself. As a loyal friend of America, the democracy of Taiwan has merited our strong support, including the timely sale of defensive arms and full participation in the World Health Organization and other multilateral institutions.

A fairly strong statement, but one that seeks to maintain the “status quo” between Taiwan and China…unfortunately, the status quo means Chinese ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan and threats of violence against the Taiwanese people by Beijing..so more American aquiescence to the archaic “one China” policy.

Now China:

We will welcome the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous China, and we will welcome even more the development of a democratic China. Its rulers have already discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth; the next lesson is that political and religious freedom leads to national greatness. That is not likely to be learned while the government in Beijing pursues advanced military capabilities without any apparent need, imposes a “one-child” policy on its people, suppresses basic human rights in Tibet and elsewhere, and erodes democracy in Hong Kong. China must honor its obligations regarding free speech and a free press as announced prior to the Olympics.

Our bilateral trade with China has created export opportunities for American farmers and workers, while both the requirements of the World Trade Organization and the realities of the marketplace have increased openness and the rule of law in China. We must yet ensure that China fulfills its WTO obligations, especially those related to protecting intellectual property rights, elimination of subsidies, and repeal of import restrictions. China’s full integration into the global economy requires that it adopt a flexible monetary exchange rate and allow free movement of capital. China’s economic growth brings with it the responsibility for environmental improvement, both for its own people and for the world community.

Nice.

Senator John McCain has a lengthy article laying out his view of American foreign policy in the November/December 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs. Here’s a part of his section on China:

China could also bolster its claim that it is “peacefully rising” by being more transparent about its significant military buildup. When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters, modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests antisatellite weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts. When China threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric, the United States must take note. When China enjoys close economic and diplomatic relations with pariah states such as Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, tension will result. When China proposes regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia, the United States will react.

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests. U.S.-Chinese relations can benefit both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values.

“Periodicaly shared interests” sounds about right as a policy towards China, at least as long as Beijing remains a thuggish authoritarian regime.

In a recent post, I wondered which U.S. presidential candidate would be better on supporting democratic Taiwan over the communists in Beijing and gave a slight edge to Senator McCain (though both candidates appear to support a continuation of the ridiculous “one China” policy).

As a part of America’s acquiesence to Beijing’s false claim of sovereignty over democratic Taiwan, there are travel restrictions on Taiwanese officials to the U.S. and bans on direct communications between U.S. government officials and their counterparts in Taiwan. So would President Obama put an end to these restrictions?

From the Formosan Association for Public Affairs comes this tidbit from Senator Obama’s comments on Taiwan’s March 2008 presidential election:

The United States should respond to Ma Ying-jeou’s election by rebuilding a relationship of trust and support for Taiwan’s democracy. The U.S. should reopen blocked channels of communication with Taiwan officials.

Does Senator Obama mean it?

Back in October 2007, U.S. Senator Tim Johnson introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 48 (S.CON.RES.48) a resolution which:

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) restrictions on U.S. visits by high-level elected and appointed officials of Taiwan, including the President of Taiwan, should be lifted; (2) the United States should allow direct Cabinet level exchanges in order to strengthen a policy dialogue with Taiwan; and (3) it is in the U.S. national interest to strengthen links with the democratically-elected government of Taiwan and demonstrate stronger support for democracy in the Asia-Pacific region.

Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the president, and lack the force of law. Rather they are intended, among other things, to express the sentiments of the U.S. Congress in a formal way towards a particular issue.

Yet missing for the very short list of co-sponsors for the resolution is Senator Barack Obama (to be fair, Senator McCain’s name is also absent from the list).

The resolution was sent to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs for consideration in October 2007, and that was the end of Congressional action on the resolution thus far. Among the members of the foreign affairs committee is U.S. Senator Barack Obama. As a side note, the chairman of the committee is U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, who is now Senator Obama’s vice presidential running mate.

Point is that months before Senator Obama stated that the U.S. “should reopen blocked channels of communications with Taiwan officials” he had an opportunity to co-sponsor and help push through the foreign affairs committee a resolution advocating for just such a re-opening of communication with Taiwan.

Of course, President Obama could make the sentiment of S.CON.RES.48 a reality by simply ordering the U.S. State Department to begin direct communcation with the Taiwanese…but would he?

For now, the pro-Taiwan edge still goes to McCain.

“Both Ways” Beijing is at it again. The regime recently echoed a longstanding Chinese theme that nations should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. This is, of course, hogwash. Beijing is more than willing to use its significant clout to affect the internal affairs of other countries when it suits the regime, especially when it comes to China’s efforts at marginalizing Taiwan internationally.

In a recent speech in Thailand, just before heading off to the Olympics in Beijing, U.S. President Bush tweaked China over its human rights record, including the detention of political dissidents, human rights and religious activists and other human rights abuses by Beijing.

In response, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman tweaked right back at Mr. Bush:

“We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues.”

Really?

In 2007, my Independence Institute collegue Dave Kopel and I wrote about Costa Rica dropping diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to enter into a stronger economic and diplomatic relations with China:

In June, Costa Rica ended nearly sixty years of diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to establish diplomatic relations with China. Not only a victory in Beijing’s efforts to smother Taiwan’s independence, the Costa Rican switch is further evidence of China’s growing influence in Latin America—a growing threat to democracy and to U.S. interests.

Announcing the diplomatic switch, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias cited a desire to strengthen commercial ties and “attract investment” from China. Arias then thanked Taiwan for its “solidarity and co-operation” over the last sixty years, noting that Taiwan has been “very generous.”

But the next day, Arias denounced Taiwan for being “stingy.” Sounding as though he had taken emergency talking points from Beijing, Arias grumbled, “Considering the few friends they have, they don’t treat them very well.” Arias continued, “Without a doubt, we will get more help from China.”

So if Beijing actually believes that no country should interfere in the internal affairs of another, why would Costa Rica have to end its relationship with Taiwan in order to “get more help from China?”

As Kopel and I continue:

China insists that the price of trade relations is the severance of diplomatic relations with independent Taiwan. A 2005 Heritage Foundation report warned that “China has launched a major diplomatic offensive in Central America and the Caribbean to stamp out Taiwan’s diplomatic legitimacy in the region and supplant Taiwan’s influence among these young democracies with its own.” The report observed that China has been “translating its economic success -and its search for resources to fuel its economic growth—into greater influence in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

So perhaps the U.S. should go ahead and call Beijing on its bluster about not interfering in other countries’ affairs by re-entering into formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and maybe even throw in a trade deal with Taiwan. Then when Beijing throws its predictable temper tantrum, the U.S. can gently remind the regime that other countries (China) should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations (in this case, foreign policy decisions by the U.S.).

In the race for the U.S. presidency, it has become common for some of Senator Barack Obama’s supporters to claim that a McCain presidency would simply be a third term for George Bush…the implication being that there is really no difference between Senator McCain and President Bush. Yet with regard to China/Taiwan/U.S. relations, it appears that it is Senator Obama who is more closely aligned with the Bush Administration’s policy of appeasment toward Beijing in order to maintain the “status quo” between China and Taiwan, while Senator McCain is more openly pro-Taiwan (though still opposed to a unilateral declaration of independence from China by Taiwan).

From the Taipei Times last year concerning a speech that Senator Obama made on the floor of the U.S. Senate in May 2007:

While the US should welcome a peaceful rising China, he said, “at the same time, we must remain prepared to respond should China’s rise take a problematic turn.”

In this, Obama took a script from the underlying US policy toward cross-strait relations that has guided Washington’s approach to the US-Taiwan-China triangle since the US recognized the People’s Republic of China at the end of 1978.

In talking about responding to a “problematic turn,” Obama said, “this means maintaining our military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthening our alliances and making clear to both Beijing and Taipei that a unilateral change in the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is unacceptable.”

What Sen. Obama had to say is eerily familiar to what U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had to say last year about Taiwan’s referendum on United Nations membership. From the New York Times in December 2007:

During a State Department news conference, Ms. Rice said: “We think that Taiwan’s referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name ‘Taiwan’ is a provocative policy. It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage.”

Ms. Rice’s sharp comments, addressing one of a handful of issues that she raised without prompting by reporters, were meant to send a signal to both China and Taiwan.

While she reiterated the administration policy — that the United States “opposes any threat to use force and any unilateral move by either side to change the status quo” — she placed the United States solidly on the side of China on the issue of Taiwan’s referendum. China regards Taiwan as a breakaway province that should ultimately be reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary.

Compare the rhetoric of both Sen. Obama and the Bush State Department with that of Senator McCain from a 2006 interview:

And I would also make it clear to the Chinese that we’re not happy with some things, like the currency exchange. We’re not happy with their repression of democracy. We’re not happy with their failure to progress recently on a path to a free and open society.

And we will continue our steadfast belief that Taiwan will only be reunited to China if it’s done in a peaceful manner and the people of Taiwan desire to do so. Until then, we will protect them.

So for now It appears that regardless of who is is the next U.S. president, the archaic “one China” policy will continue, and the U.S. will continue to advocate maintaining the “status quo” between Taiwan and China. But it is likely that President McCain would be a more avid supporter of democratic Taiwan, and a fiercer critic of the regime in Beijing, than President Obama.

In a previous post, I noted that a possible benefit of an increase in Chinese tourism to Taiwan due to a new cross-straits commercial air travel arrangement between Taipei and Beijing might be a great many Chinese (presumably Chinese from the middle and upper classes who can afford to travel) might just decide that life in a liberal democracy beats life under a communist regime. But besides individual Chinese, there is much that China as a nation can learn from Taiwan, like the benefit of economic freedom for its citizens. As an example, the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, published jointly by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal ranks China as number 126 (out of 162 countries ranked) for a freedom score of 52.8 (or mostly unfree). For Asia-Pacific nations, China ranks a lowly 23 out of 30 countries.

According to the report:

China is a one-party state ruled by the Chinese Communist Party. Despite rhetoric about democratic development, the party maintains strict control of political expression, speech, assembly, and religion. Since opening up to foreign trade in the early 1980s, China’s economy has expanded rapidly. It is now the world’s second-largest economy in absolute terms, although per capita income remains low. Most workers are employed in the agricultural sector. The financial sector is largely opaque and state-controlled, raising concerns about lending practices. Since joining the World Trade Organization in 2002, China has liberalized many sectors of its economy, but it still suffers from the lack of a rule of law, poor protection of intellectual property rights, and corruption, among other hurdles.

Taiwan, on the other hand, ranks number 25 in the world, and number 6 out of the 30 Asia-Pacific nations ranked, with a freedom score of 71 percent (or mostly free).

According to the report, besides having “one of the regions most dynamic democracies,”

Taiwan has high scores for investment freedom, trade freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and government size. The average tariff rate, the inflation rate, and the level of corruption are all low. Although Taiwan’s personal income tax is high, the corporate tax rate is moderate, and overall tax revenue is low as a percentage of GDP. Government spending is similarly low. Taiwan’s investment climate is healthy, and 100 percent foreign ownership is permitted in most sectors. Property rights are protected by the judiciary, although there are minor problems with case delays and corruption associated with organized crime.

So instead of pointing missiles at the Taiwanese, Beijing should be taking lessons from them.

The China Post describes the first day of a new cross-strait commercial air travel arrangement between Taiwan and Mainland China:

More than 700 Chinese tourists arrived in Taiwan while about an equal number of Taiwanese passengers flew to China yesterday in the first wave of regular cross-straits commercial flights in nearly six decades that could transform ties between the old foes.

On the first day of the operation, a total of 753 Chinese people, including 622 tourists, 31 officials and 60 news reporters and photographers, arrived in Taiwan on nine flights from China.

This is pretty significant. Keep in mind that the communist regime in Beijing claims sovereignty over Taiwan, even though is is plainly obvious that Taiwan functions as an independent state, and that Taiwanese go about their daily lives under threat of annihilation by Chinese ballistic missiles pointed at the island. So what good can possibly come from this? Well, hopefully a great many Chinese tourists will decide that life in a liberal democracy beats life under communism. Or as Michael Turton notes his blog, The View From Taiwan:

No doubt China is pondering the consequences of letting loose thousands of middle and upper class Chinese on a nation where Asians refute every day the lie that Asians are not suited for democracy.

In fact, that refutation may have already begun. From Saturday’s Taipei Times:

Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners and unificationists took the opportunity to highlight their causes yesterday as the first cross-strait charter flights arrived.

The groups welcomed Chinese tourists with placards proclaiming their views outside Taipei Songshan Airport on Dunhua N Road.

“Human rights for China, independence for Tibet,” Tibetans and their supporters shouted, waving the Tibetan flag as buses carrying Chinese tourists passed by. “We welcome Chinese tourists to breathe the air of freedom in Taiwan!”

Chinese visitors waved at the Tibetan demonstrators and took pictures.

As has been on display to the world recently, under Beijing’s thuggish occupation of Tibet, advocating Tibetan independence (or even going on about human rights) gets you beaten down or killed in the streets by Chinese security forces. In contemporary Taiwan, an Asian nation that only a few decades ago was a one-party dictatorship, Tibetans and advocates for independence can invite Chinese to “breathe the air of freedom.”

That’s great stuff.

The latest Taiwan Communique, published by the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, has an interesting essay by Charles Tannock of the British Conservative Party. Tannock notes that while China’s thuggish occupation of Tibet gets much (and well deserved) international attention, “the injustice of Taiwan’s ongoing international isolation has barely stirred a flicker of interest despite Taiwan’s recent presidential election and referendum on UN membership.”

As Tanner explains:

This seeming double standard can be explained partly by a sense of guilt. The West has, for the most part, embraced Kosovo’s independence in an effort to assuage its own culpability for not preventing late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic’s campaign of ethnic cleansing there. Similarly, much of the world is protesting on behalf of Tibet because countless millions have witnessed China’s brutal suppression of Tibetan culture.

Taiwan, on the other hand, does not grab our attention, because it is stable and flourishing economically. But it has never been part of the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan is an unrecognized independenct state with a vigorous democracy and high standards of human rights. Because Taiwan has not allowed itself to become a victim, the world simply does not feel guilty about it, and so ignores it.

Tanner may have a point about Western guilt, but could there be a worse reason to protest Beijing’s thuggish occupation of Tibet than to simply try and make one’s self feel better? Even worse is to ignore Taiwan’s international marginalization at the hands of Beijing because it doesn’t make one feel “guilty” enough to care.

Note that Tanner says guilt only partially explains this situation…here he gets to the good stuff:

The campaigns that the West waged throughout the 1980s in solidarity with democratic forces in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe helped bring about the end of communist domination. A similar commitment to the democratic rights of Taiwanese could have salutary effects in China. Moreover, Taiwan is a natural ally of any party that espouses the values of pluralistic politics, free markets and human rights.

It seems particularly shortsighted, indeed hypocritical, for the US and Britain to seek to spread democracy and human rights throughout the world while failing to recognize and reward the Taiwanese, a people who have embraced these concepts wholeheartedly.

Unquestioning recognition of the “one china” policy sends the message that we appreciate more a country that is a big, communist dictatorship rather than a small multiparty democracy.

Indeed, the U.S. does stubbornly cling to the antiquated “one China” policy. The lack of formal recognition of Taiwan by the U.S. actually lends support to Beijing’s remarkably successful efforts at marginalizing Taiwan internationally. This doesn’t mean there isn’t support for Taiwan in the U.S. government. The U.S. Senate has a Taiwan Caucus with twenty five members and the U.S. House of Representatives Taiwan Caucus has 151 members.

Still, at the end of the day, U.S. policy can be boiled down to appeasing the communists in Beijing at the expense of democratic Taiwan.

This morning regime watch hit two thousand page views. As I said when the blog hit one thousand page views, I don’t really know what this means considering the many thousands of blogs out there…but it seems like a pretty hefty number to me. The majority of visitors continue to come from within the United States, followed by the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany and Canada. About twelve percent of visitors come from “other” countries. Welcome and thanks to you all.

The first post on regime watch was about my article “Misery: China’s Main Export,” which describes Communist China’s moral illegitimacy to host the 2008 Olympics, and which was first published in the excellent weekly Colorado newspaper, Johnstown Breeze. Here it is, re-printed in its entirety. And again, thanks to everyone who found their way to this blog…hope you come back from time to time.

In 2005, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo introduced a resolution into the House of Representatives calling on the U.S. Olympic Committee to change the venue of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, citing among other things, the “egregious violations of human rights” by China.

And indeed, while Communist China is well qualified to host an international gathering of thugs and tyrants, the regime’s moral legitimacy as host of the Olympics is another matter entirely.

In May 2007, The Hill—a Washington, D.C. newspaper that covers Congress—reported on “a quiet lobbying campaign” in Washington by China in an attempt to “deflect threats that the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing will be boycotted because of what critics say is a Chinese failure to help end genocidal violence in Darfur.”

Actually, far from simply failing to help end the slaughter, China’s outright complicity in the genocide being perpetrated by the National Islamic Front regime in Khartoum against non-Arab tribes-people in the Darfur region of Sudan is well established

A March 2007 report from the Washington D.C.-based Heritage Foundation notes that China’s huge investment in Sudan oil in turn helps fund the genocide in Darfur, “Khartoum has doubled its defense budget in recent years, spending 60 percent to 80 percent of its estimated $500 million in annual oil revenue—half from China—on weapons. Some of these weapons find their way to the conflict in Darfur.”

Beijing has also helped subvert international arm embargoes against Khartoum. As the Heritage report continues, “Moreover, with Chinese assistance, the Sudanese government recently built three weapons factories.”

So with China’s help, the Janjaweed militias carrying out the genocide in Darfur are not only well-armed, but have also received military transportation and helicopter gunship support from Khartoum, making the slaughter all the more efficient.

In 2006, China not only abstained from a United Nations Security Council Resolution authorizing the deployment of troops and civilian police into Darfur to provide security against the genocide, but also used its veto power to force language into the resolution requiring the consent of the same Khartoum regime whose mass-murder in Darfur created the need for an international security force in the first place.

But the lobbying campaign didn’t work out as Beijing may have hoped. In May 2007, Congressman Tom Lantos (D-Ca.) released a letter to the Chinese President signed by over 100 members of Congress, including Colorado’s Tancredo stating, among other things, “…unless China does its part to ensure that the government of Sudan accepts the best and most reasonable path to peace, history will judge your government as having bank-rolled a genocide.”

The letter continues, “If China fails to do its part, it risks being forever known as the host of the ‘Genocide Olympics.’ ”

Besides enabling genocide in Darfur, China is also well into its fiftieth year of a military occupation of Tibet. Many thousands of Tibetans—including Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama—are forced to live in exile around the world

Last year, Beijing showed its hyper-sensitivity to having its thuggish occupation of Tibet tied to the Olympics by detaining and then deporting Colorado resident Kirsten Westby and four other Americans for peacefully displaying a banner saying “One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 2008” on the Tibetan side of Mount Everest.

The slogan was a clever play on Beijing’s own cynical slogan for the 2008 Olympics, “One World, One Dream.”

In addition, Beijing is again threatening violence against the peaceful and democratic island nation of Taiwan, over which China claims sovereignty—even though it is plainly obvious that Taiwan function as an independent state—and that only Beijing may represent Taiwan’s 23 million citizens in international organizations.

In 2005, Beijing enacted an “Anti-Secession Law” which codified China’s already long-standing threats against Taiwan. Article eight of the law mandates the use of “Non-peaceful” means against Taiwan if, among other things, “a major event occurs which would lead to Taiwan’s separation from China.”

After more than a decade of being turned down for United Nations membership under its traditional name “Republic of China,” Taiwan is planning a national referendum this year over whether to formally apply for UN membership under the name “Taiwan.”

Beijing recently stated that Taiwan’s referendum represents the kind of “major event” that would allow the regime to invoke article eight against Taiwan.

So Communist China is desperately trying to put on a friendly face for the Olympics while at the same time threatening one of Asia’s most dynamic representative democracies.

The eyes of the world will be on Beijing for the summer games, making the 2008 Olympics a unique opportunity to shine an international spotlight on the misery China exports around the globe.

I posted earlier on National Journal’s excellent article on China’s “cyber-militia” penetrating U.S. government and business information systems.   The Heritage Foundation has also been on top of this story.

From the February 2008 Heritage report, “Trojan Dragon:  China’s Cyber Threat” 

The U.S. military has been the primary target of Chinese cyberattacks, followed closely by the Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security.  Academic, industrial, defense, and financial databases are also vulnerable.  Regrettably, American officials tend to be very sensitive to China’s feelings and refrain from public allegations that the attacks are launched by Chinese agents, even though, as one U.S. cybersecurity expert points out, “the Chinese are in half of your agencies’ systems” already.

But it is not just the U.S. under cyberattack by Beijng, the Heritage report has sections on Chinese hacker penetration of systems in the United Kingdom and Taiwan:

According to an offical of Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense, in 2006, Taiwan detected 13 PLA [People's Liberation Army] zero-day attacks launched within Microsoft applications and experienced a total of 178 days days of vulnerability between notifying Microsoft of the attacks and receiving  the appropriate patches.

« go back — keep looking »

Recently Written

• Downzoning northwest Denver is contrary to sustainable development goals
• Why Denver’s new zoning code should allow accessory dwelling units (granny flats)
• More Communist Paranoia From Beijing
• How President Obama can show support for Taiwan
• Taiwan supporters in U.S. Congress alive and kicking
• Communist Chinese Authoritarianism at its Paranoid Worst.
• Is The U.S. Postal Service Practicing Beijing Appeasment?
• Che and Mao, Icons for the Clueless
• Beijing Pouts Over Sarkozy Meeting With Dalai Lama
• More Chinese Influence in Africa

Categories

• Africa
• Burma
• China
• Colorado
• Darfur
• Denver
• Denver zoning code
• Espionage
• Ethiopia
• Falun Gong
• Genocide
• Inner Mongolia
• milestones
• Mount Everest
• Mugabe
• Nepal
• Olympics
• Personal Freedom
• Taiwan
• Tibet
• Uighers
• Uncategorized
• Zimbabwe

Archives

• August 2009
• February 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008

Blogroll

• Dave Kopel
• David Harsanyi
• Dream for Darfur
• Independence Institute
• Sam Adams Alliance
• SudanReeves
• The Cauldron

Admin

• Register
• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Search