Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

China and Taiwan Declare Peace

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted July 9, 2008.


America's military hawks will have to find a new reason to blow money on weapons we don't need.
Advertisement

You can't trust the Chinese. I don't care if you're talking about those communists on the mainland or the other guys on Taiwan; they just won't follow the war-games script that our weapons hawks had counted on. Their mutual passion runs not to matters of tired politics but rather on the lust of venture capitalists. To the Chinese, irrespective of past allegiances, the prospect of war has come to be viewed as counterproductive, and they now have the confidence to show it.

No longer pretending to be enemies, a condition in which they engaged in angry rhetoric while doing much business together on the side, a public love affair now has broken out across the Strait of Formosa. On Friday, there were scheduled direct flights between the mainland and its breakaway island for the first time in 60 years, and the invasion of tourists clicking their cameras was on.

Not that it was much noticed by the media or presidential candidates, but this long chapter of Cold War conflict has been closed and a new era of peace proclaimed by once strident foes. Taiwanese businessmen already are major investors in the mainland, and the new Taiwan government has recognized that reality by quickly pushing for full normalization of trade and other accommodations.

For years now, the Chinese on both sides of the strait have been acting as if they are members of one nation, with the descendants of those who fled the mainland with Chiang Kai-shek building mansions in their old villages and increasingly preferring that their offspring study in China rather than at American schools. Thus, it was not surprising when the leader of the old nationalist Kuomintang Party, which won the recent Taiwan election, quickly went to the mainland to pledge the dawn of a new era. Gone is the prime excuse for a major U.S. military presence in the Pacific, now that the Taiwanese have made their separate peace. What good are our fancy military weapons to people preoccupied with a consumer revolution? The concern over mainland missiles landing on Taiwan has been replaced with a fear that some country cousins from the mainland might be given to spitting on the sidewalks. Those fears were assuaged when tourists from both sides over the weekend conducted themselves with proper comportment while shopping till they dropped.

That peace has broken out is a nightmare scenario for America's military hawks in desperate need of an excuse for soaking up more than half of the U.S. government's discretionary budget. There was real panic when Mikhail Gorbachev formally ended the Cold War and George H.W. Bush announced a 30 percent cut in military spending in 1992. Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the wildest peacetime spending spree in history. No one in power noticed that the expensive weapons were designed to defeat an enemy that no longer existed. That's because we were traumatized by something called terrorism, and few questioned the decision to build weapons such as the two new Virginia-class submarines, at a cost of $5 billion, to catch Osama bin Laden, probably holed up in a cave in a landlocked nation. But submarines obviously have nothing to do with fighting terrorists, forcing Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who represents Connecticut, where the subs are built, to play the China card: "If we do not move to produce two submarines a year as soon as possible, we are in serious danger of falling behind China."

Fomenting fear of China is essential to making the case for the whole range of high-tech war toys that no longer have a legitimate military purpose. But it's a sick joke. We are paying the Chinese the interest on the money we borrow from them to build very expensive weapons to counter weapons the Chinese have no intention of building. The latest word from the Pentagon is that "[t]he Intelligence Community estimates China will take until the end of this decade or later to produce a modern force capable of defeating a moderate-size adversary."

The only adversary that interested China, according to the Pentagon report, was Taiwan, and as recent events have indicated, that game is over. But don't shed tears just yet for the denizens of the military-industrial complex. Why should they doubt our continued willingness to throw money at weapons that have no targets, when few in Congress or the media ever bother to notice?

It took Gorbachev on Tuesday, in scathing criticism of President Bush and presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, to note that in the United States, "The subject of military spending has literally been shrouded in the curtain of silence. This taboo must be lifted."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: military spending, taiwan, china

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I've got a great idea...
Posted by: lexicon on Jul 9, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The MIC (military industrial complex) needs to be fed. It can't be shut off cold-turkey, it needs to be weaned gradually, lovingly, endearingly, with all the unconditional support a loving mom can give it.

But, this thing about killing brown people has got to stop.

So, we have to redirect the Pentagon, wave a shiny new bauble in it's face, to distract it from the old security 'blankee' that it's been clinging to.

What will serve?

Why, none other than the new "War On Weather".

Let's get some no-bid contracts ginned up for some hurricane devastation containment contingencies...some radars and stuff that will count water molecules...some wave and storm-swell mitigation technologies...some early warning tornado systems, and maybe some kind of bomb that you can set off inside a tornado, that will make it go poof.

Let's get them working on a meteorite repellant shield.

See, the way it works, is that the elite controllers of the world have their little game, this "war" thing...let's make it FUN FUN FUN for them to wage war against WEATHER ITSELF, against the "enemy" of GW. (global warming...not george w.) But maybe they can be against gwb too....not trying to exclude anyone here.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even better idea.....
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Jul 9, 2008 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...put your money where your mouth is.

The reason that the pols keep giving our money to the defense contractors is entirely financial at this point.

Understand if your pension fund or 401k mutual funds are invested in defense contractors.

If they are, divest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scheer has totally misunderstood the situation
Posted by: Michael Turton on Jul 10, 2008 7:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PART 1

In Scheer's view the flights herald "peace", China has no designs on Taiwan, the Taiwanese have made peace with China, and the Bush Administration is trying to push weapons on the island.

All of this is completely wrong.

Scheer's piece is shaped by the outdated, uninformed Cold War lenses that continue to prevent progressives from taking a good look at Taiwan. Scheer's piece above shows how progressive thinking has failed to keep pace with the changes in East Asia.

As a result of this blind spot, the US defenders of the progressive pro-democracy side in Taiwan politics are all neo-cons, while the US left either sides with the authoritarians in Beijing, or the right-wing party, the KMT, that now controls both the executive and the legislature in Taiwan.

What has actually happened is that the KMT, which gave Taiwan 50 years of martial law and a totally corrupt developmentalist state that continues to impair the growth of progressive politics and policy here, took total control of the legislature in January, and put Ma Ying-jeou, who built his political career in opposition to democracy before experiencing a sudden conversion in the 1990s, into the Presidency in March.

The KMT had long been coordinating policy with Beijing to suppress the growth of the island's democracy movement and its unique identity. The KMT party Chairman, Wu Po-hsiung, who indeed went to China after the Presidential election, went there as part of this ongoing cooperation, the key components of which are back-channel and unknown to the public.

Both the KMT and Beijing hated the previous President, Chen Shui-bian, a former corporate lawyer and human rights lawyer who came to power in 2000 and thence negotiated with China from the firm position that Taiwan's sovereignty was non-negotiable. The current flights between Taiwan and China stem from the groundwork laid in the negotiations by the pro-Taiwan and pro-democracy party, the DPP with Beijing. China, for its part, was very successful in portraying Chen as "troublemaker." In this it has been supported by the Bush Administration, which has, in the words of Jonathon Manthorpe, the veteran Canadian journalist, "outsourced its Taiwan policy to Beijing." Obsessed with its defeats in the Middle East, the Bush Administration does not want Taiwan to joggle its elbow. Further, it wants China's cooperation on North Korea. Hence, it has decided to sell out the island.

To understand how wrong Scheer's piece is, imagine that it was discussing not Taiwan but Ukraine. Imagine further that a pro-Russian anti-democracy party came to power in Ukraine and wanted to annex the nation back to Russia. Now imagine that Scheer was praising the resulting situation in which Ukraine's sovereignty was impaired for no gain at all, but because the pro-Russian party hopes to annex the nation back to Russia. And imagine that the US was backing the pro-Russia party and smearing the pro-democracy side .... that is what has happened in Taiwan, where the current President, Ma Ying-jeou, was backed by both Beijing and Washington.

In other words, this is a situation in which a progressive out to call into question the actions of Beijing, Taipei, and Washington, not laud them as "peace moves."

The current party in power, the KMT (Chinese Nationalist Party) has ruled Taiwan since 1945. In 1949 it relocated its government there, falsely claimed that Taiwan was part of China, and has been aching to annex the island back to China ever since. The US position helped prevent this tragedy; it was, and remains, that the status of Taiwan is undetermined. With the advent of democracy KMT elites have responded by moving closer to Beijing even as they assure the rank and file that they love Taiwan and court moderate votes by promising they will not sell out the island.

(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scheer misunderstanding... PART II
Posted by: Michael Turton on Jul 10, 2008 7:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PART II

Far from Taiwan being some Cold War stalking horse for a war with China, the Council on Foreign Relations and other Establishment groups are quietly pushing for Taiwan to be annexed to China, because they want to make big bucks off China. For them, Taiwan is an irritant to the smooth earning of more dollars. They want it sold out.

The flights are not "Taiwan declaring peace" because Taiwan is not the cause of conflict, China is. China wants to annex Taiwan, a nation no ethnic Chinese emperor ever owned, and which the PRC has never controlled, and China has threatened to kill anyone who gets in its way, and to plunge the region into war. Far from "making money" China is continuing a massive military build up aimed at Taiwan, and is not only claiming Taiwan, but also other islands in the South China Sea and abroad. At present 1,300 missiles are pointed at the island. There cannot be "peace" until the military threat to Taiwan ceases.

The DPP, which had already instituted limited flights and tourism, had bundled tourist flights from China with cargo and shipping links, which the island really needs. China does not want Taiwan to have cargo flights, because Taiwan's logistics firms are far better than its own. The KMT instead accepted a flight agreement under which all Chinese tourists travel only on Chinese aircraft to Taiwan. This is no "declaring peace." It is capitulation.

Because the DPP drew the limit at sovereignty, it had a strong negotiating stance. By the same token, because the KMT does not care about Taiwan's independent sovereignty, there is no limit to what it can give away. Ma has already indicated that Taiwan's independent foreign policy will be suspended, and the KMT has already begun to roll back the separation between the party and the military achieved as a series of democratic reforms under the DPP.

Ironically, Scheer's wrongheadedness is driven his Cold War analysis of events. Bush is not trying to sell weapons to Taiwan -- quite the opposite! As a number of major publications have reported -- including Defense News and WaPo, the Bush Administration has instituted a de facto arms freeze on Taiwan since 2006, when it decided not to sell Taiwan the F-16 fighters we need if we are to keep our democracy here. The Bush Administration's policy is in fact just the opposite of what Scheer claims: thee Administration is quietly shoving the island into China's arms and refusing to give it weapons. If Scheer was not guided by his out of date Cold War analytical stance, he might, with a ten minute Google search, have discovered that the US isn't selling weapons to Taiwan, and hasn't been for several years. Rather, it wants Taiwan to disappear.

The Taiwanese and Chinese are not acting like they are one nation. Few Taiwanese want to become part of the PRC. Rather, they are doing what any pragmatic people might do: invest where they can make money. Peace cannot prevail across the Taiwan Strait until China gives up its desire to annex Taiwan by force, and that cannot happen until US progressives and conservatives get together on this issue. Until Taiwan means something to progressives, the way Tibet does.

There's so much that is wrong in this article, but I think the saddest part of this misguided piece is that it is just another example of how progressives have completely failed Taiwan's democracy, because they refuse to see Taiwan as it is, and instead use analytical stances that are now 40 years out of date. Tragically, while history has advanced, they have not.

Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan
http://michaelturton.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Distortions?
Posted by: Michael Turton on Jul 11, 2008 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(1) .....should have a good understanding of Chinese culture. What does "ethnic Chinese" mean?

Han. As you note below...

Taiwan was a Chinese province in the Ching dynasty, which is ethnically Manchurian instead of Han. ....I bet you 5 NT$ you'll see a nice Chinese drama set in the Ching Imperial Household).

...the Qing were Manchus. The fact that they have been re-interpreted as "Chinese" today is nice, but not relevant to the many local families who boasted that they never supplied an official to the "alien" regime throughout its existence -- nor to the Qing themselves, who knew they were aliens ruling a multicultural empire and continued, to the last day of the dynasty, to issue edicts in Manchurian (there are some lovely surviving examples in the Chih Kan Lou in Tainan).

This reinterpretation of the Qing as Chinese is part of a larger pattern of expansionist interpretations of the past that enable the Chinese to lay claim to Tibet, Taiwan, and elsewhere, since some part of them were Qing possessions. In point of fact Taiwan was only barely a Qing possession throughout the period of Qing control -- they never controlled the highlands -- and was a formal province for less than a decade. The Taiwanese revolted repeatedly, tossing them off a couple of times. Qing-Taiwan relations are fascinating.

And what about the rule of Taiwan by the Ming Dynasty loyalist ...is he "ethincially Chinese" enough for you?

You mean the half-Japanese Koxinga? And the Qing did not "recover" Taiwan since they had never owned it.

Your point in making that statement is lost on me either way.

To remind people that the island of Taiwan belongs to the people of Taiwan, and that Chinese claims to the island are a postwar phenomenon. Taiwan is not in the prewar ROC constitution nor, when Chiang Kai Shek unified China in 1927, did anyone ask him where Taiwan was. The fact is that throughout Chinese history Taiwan has historically been seen as being outside China.

They also elected the KMT candidate Ma in order to stabilize and improve relations with China. ... Doesn't the will of the Taiwanese people mean anything to "The View"?

Actually, we both know that the US and Beijing both did everything they could to help Ma get elected. Ma was not elected to deliver the island into Chinese hands, but to stimulate economic growth by building on the ties the DPP had created.

The DPP was neither corrupt, petty, nor ineffective. Compared to the KMT? Don't make me laugh.

Does the Taiwanese want to reunify with China -.... he'd turn over in his grave if he can see Taiwan today.

That I agree with, although given what Ma has done already, it appears that China is more likely to change Taiwan than Taiwan is to change China.

But these are all minor points. The real issue of my response is that none of this makes it into Scheer's piece. Neither he nor any other progressive seems to give a damn about our democracy here, or about Taiwan in general. The recent election of Ma, so crucial to US security and foreign policy, so important in regional politics, such a huge setback for the democracy of the island, was not mentioned on a single progressive website -- CommonDreams, Alternet, etc -- other than bare reports. Nobody analyzed it or thought about what it meant. There was no progressive take on the issues, because Taiwan has fallen off the progressive radar, except for occasional bows to progressive shibboleths like Scheer's piece.

Because progressives see the wrong problem with Taiwan -- it's a Cold War Stalking Horse! -- they don't see the real problems.

Michael

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Distortions? Posted by: Condor
» RE: Distortions? Posted by: Condor
» RE: Distortions? Posted by: tyson1881
» RE: Distortions? Posted by: Condor
thanks Michael Turton
Posted by: 1234 on Jul 14, 2008 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for giving greater insight into what is going on re China and Taiwan.

I think often times, as progressives in the US, we start speaking without having a real understanding of the situation on the ground and historical context in various countries. That is definitely true of this article.

Support democracy in Taiwan!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

controvert the topic
Posted by: jeffery lucht on Jul 15, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can't trust the Chinese?
fact: loyalty is within our blood no matter which side of strait we all share the same value,if any movement that caused the impression of untrustworthy then,may be we learned from president Nixon and jimmy Carter, whom Taiwanese have tested of been betrayed,which uncle Sam called it as for the interest of USA.so the peace movement we Taiwanese call it as surviving,I wonder if mr. Scheer ever read the book of "The art of war" written by Sun Tzu which people on each side of strait all fully adopt from.

No longer pretending to be enemies?
fact: We were brain washed and forced to look at mainland China as our sole enemy back then, that was part of our life and history and it shall undisputable.

As Taiwanese build the manssion on mainland, for our culture that's glorifying our forefather which the same as Christain do the good deed to glorify the God;why Mr. Scheer made such big deal of it? Send the kids to study in China not USA SCHOOL? after 9/11 do you know how difficult to get VISA to attend school in usa?
I am sorry to acknowledge that the peace movement would be the nightmare scenario for America's military hawks, I am also sorry for the Mr. Scheer whoes writing revealed the lack of knowledge of our culture and history,more or likly as a whiner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumb and Dumber
Posted by: Condor on Jul 17, 2008 6:03 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title is not about the article. In my opinion the article was over optimistic regarding the detente between China and Taiwan, nevertheless it made a good point about a leg being pulled out from under the U.S. military industrial complex, unfortunately I'm sure they'll invent another leg very soon.

The title is about Michael Turton's objections and those who actually follow the disinformation being spread by him, all in the name of supporting Taiwanese democracy. The hyprocrisy in this is almost obscene, since it was the decision of the Taiwanese people in a textbook excercise of their democratic rights which brought about the change in government, which in turn brought about this move towards detente. Michael Turton and his ilk would like to ignore the will of the Taiwanese people because they are on the losing side of the election. Well guess what Michael, in an election someone loses - and your side lost. Now grow up and be a responsible member of a democratic society and accept the will of the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More than an excuse
Posted by: tyson1881 on Jul 18, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of the article may not be on the cross-trait peace. But rather, it's more on the lost of an excuse for the Pentigun to fund the military industry.

As a Taiwanese, I am glad to have a person like Mr. Turton that understands Taiwan and can provide more local angles.

People on Taiwan has been brain-washed by KMT that we are part of China (same as what Communist claims), ignoring the ties between Taiwan and China only began four hundred years ago and was totally disconnected after the Sino-Japanese War. KMT is using the similar way of Communist in Culture Revolution to demonize President Chen as corruption, using the free speech rights that Chen and DPP fighted for the last two decades.

Taiwan's advantage over China is not whether we have US weapon or not. It's that we have the most advance economic strength and most democratic society in Asia.

If Taiwan's down, more than half of the fab manufacturing capacity, Notebook, bicycle and several dozen products in the world will be gone. The rest of the world will suffer. Can they stand to see China use force against Taiwan?

As the most democratic society (and some called model of China) in Asia, can Chinese, inside and outside of China, stand to see the "province" detroyed by China?

The may sound like naiive questions. But the international society and the China government may need to stop and think about these before China start a war.

I hope Taiwanese will strengthen such soft powers rather than depending on US's weapon sales.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

michael turton is a god damned hypocrite
Posted by: denk on Jul 19, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
condor
**The title is about Michael Turton's objections and those who actually follow the disinformation being spread by him, all in the name of supporting Taiwanese democracy. The hyprocrisy in this is almost obscene**

well said condor,
i told him as much here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL
Posted by: Michael Turton on Jul 28, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I object to China annexing Taiwan for the same reason that I object to the US annexing Iraq: illegal, criminal, and undemocratic.

Note that amid the name-calling from denk and condor, there is not a single substantive critique.

BTW, the freeze has been discussed ad nauseum in the major papers of record, as well as all the Taiwan local papers. I have a long account of Randall Shriver's recent talk on it in Taipei a couple of weeks ago on my blog. Scheer, of course, isn't going to write about the refusal of the US to sell weapons to Taiwan, or the fact that he's cheerleading the annexation of a democracy by an authoritarian power.

What really stinks is that after being publicly and privately informed of these facts, this piece made its way all over the progressive internet. Sad. Hopefully the next progressive who writes on Taiwan will actually know something about it.

Michael

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taiwanese Democracy
Posted by: Condor on Jul 28, 2008 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well Michael, I don't consider my response to your opinions - opinions which you present as factual in your posts - to be name-calling. Whether my objections have substance I leave up to the readers.

To recap, my objections focus in 2 main areas:
(1) You are factually distoring the history of China and Taiwan - I have pointed out these mistakes in my post.
(2) You are insulting Taiwanese democracy, the very thing you claim to support and uphold, by presenting the recent presidential election in a nefarious light - through unsupported charges and innuendos with nary a piece of factual support.

I really couldn't care less if you want to criticize Scheer's article. However, I do find the basis you use for your criticism to be offensive to anyone who has knowledge and understanding of China and Taiwan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]