US-China commission proposes more defense aid for Taiwan

Producer: Melanie Yip
First broadcast: 17 June 04, Radio Singapore International

The US government has been asked to step up military aid to Taiwan, so as to guard against possible attacks from China.

This was one of the proposed defense reforms suggested by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, as they re-assessed the one-China policy drafted 25 years ago.

Will such proposed reforms bring about changes in America's present position on Cross-Strait relations?

A question Melanie Yip put to Paul Harris (PH), Associate Professor of Politics at Lingnan University in Hong Kong.

PH: I don't think it is going to change the US policy position at all. The US position is that it would not support Taiwanese independence. There are a lot of things that can be lumped under that rubric. But I don't think that the fundamental thing will change. The United States will continue to recognize one-China. However, it is also the US position that it would not support a change in the current circumstances through aggression. What this report is going to do is give further support in domestic American politics , in the Bush Administration, particularly people in Congress who want to continue to comply with the Taiwan Relations Act by beefing up Taiwanese defense.

Is Washington over-reacting by stepping up Taiwan's defense against China?

PH: Let's be clear here, this is just a small group of people (in the commission). So you would normally expect to come up with a position that more or less falls in line with the status quo position within the Congress and US government. And that group is very much supportive of Taiwan and its de facto independence and autonomy. What it means is that it is going to be more difficult for those moderates within the US government, and perhaps, in the Bush Administration in opposing to Taiwan's request for more armaments to protect itself from the mainland.

How will China react to these proposed reforms?

PH: Of course this does pose potential problems because the mainland would not like it at all. On the other hand, it may give some impetus for the Chinese military and officials in Beijing to deploy missiles in the Taiwan Strait and otherwise threatening Taiwan and the present status quo.

The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission has called for reforms on Washington's economic policies towards Beijing as well. What forms of economic revisions will be affected?

PH: There is a belief on the part of some sectors of influential people in the US, including various branches of government, that the present economic engagement with mainland China which may or may not be good for America's economic and business interest, may not be good for America's long term security interests. There is a conception on the part of many people in the East, South East and Central Asia that a strong, and integrated China with the regional and global economy, is going to be a good thing. But looking down the road, many Americans would argue that all this does is strengthen China and eventually allow it to transition from its traditional role as an isolating state to one that becomes more aggressive towards it neighbors.

Curt Weldon, a Republican Party Representative feels that the US government was not strict in imposing sanctions against China for violation of arms control agreements. He cited that out of 48 cases of agreement violations by China, only 13 cases were sanctioned. What are the reasons that are preventing the US from imposing sanctions against China for these violations?

PH: One perhaps could boil it down to September 11 and the war on terrorism. The United States wants the cooperation and support of China, in its efforts to fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorists. The United States needs China to deal with other problems in the region like North Korea. So it is a pro-quo, despite what some of the right wing in the United States would like. I think the importance of China within the region, and more broadly, in America's war against terror, means that the Bush Administration, and the arch-conservative they are in cannot do precisely what they want.