Cornering the Dragon: Cold War Redux

[Frodo]

Cornering the dragon
By Conn Hallinan

(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)

When newly appointed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Porter Goss recently warned that China's modernization of its military posed a direct threat to the United States, was it standard budget time scare tactics, or did it signal the growing influence of hardliners in the administration of President Bush who want to "contain" China and reinstitute the Cold War in Asia?

A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld delivered a similar message to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rumsfeld claimed that within a decade the Chinese navy could surpass the US navy, and that China was "increasingly moving their navy further from shore".

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review will reportedly take a similarly alarmist view of China's military.

The CIA and Pentagon assessments offer nothing particularly new in their military analysis of China. However, both specifically excluded any mention of US-China cooperation around North Korea or last year's CIA analysis that growing economic ties between China and the US made military conflict less likely.

"It is a little surprising," James Steinberg, former national security advisor in the (former president) Bill Clinton administration told the Financial Times, "that it [the CIA assessment] didn't say anything about the enormous emphasis China places on a stable international environment and constructive relations with the US."

But not so surprising if the long battle between those in the Republican Party who favor engagement with China has begun to tip in favor of those who advocate confrontation and encirclement.

As Nation defense correspondent and Hampshire College professor Michael Klare pointed out in 2001, this division in the Republican Party goes back to the earliest days of the Cold War. For some two decades the hardliners, with their close ties to Chang Kai-shek on Taiwan, dominated US-China policy. But lured by the potential of China's markets, and anxious to widen the Sino-Soviet division, the engagement wing of the party seized the initiative with secretary of state Henry Kissinger's trip to China in 1971, establishing relations with Beijing.

The old confrontationist "China lobby" was hardly dead, however. Using the immense wealth of the Scalife, Olin and Carthage foundations under the umbrella of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the "lobby" recruited a group of well-placed, powerful political figures.

AEI members include neo-conservative icons like Lynne Cheney, Charles Murry, Michael Novak, Irving Kristol, Ben Wattenberg, Frank Gaffney and Michael Ledeen. The AEI is closely aligned with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the group that successfully lobbied for "regime change" in Iraq and argues that it is a strategic necessity for the US to control the world's oil supplies.

PNAC, the brainchild of the AEI's Kristol, includes among its members Vice President Dick Cheney, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former State Department officials Richard Armitage and John Bolton, and other leading administration figures like Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle and Zalmay Khalilzad, presently US Ambassador to Afghanistan.

The confrontationists' goals are much the same as they were in the opening years of the Cold War: ring China with military bases, support Taiwanese independence, and, in Kristol's words, "Work for the fall of the Communist Party oligarchy in China."

In short, corner the dragon.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC02Ad08.html

[jaichind]

Below is from the editorials of The Hindu.   I could not have said it better myself.     

Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai !!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRARY TO ALL the hype, China's anti-secession Bill under consideration by the National People's Conference — the country's parliament — for enactment during its current session appears to be a measured step. It is a response to provocative calls for Taiwan's independence by politicians in the island over the past year, leading to heightened tensions in the entire region. The Bill is a reiteration of China's longstanding and consistent position on Taiwan. Beijing justly views Taiwan as a dissident province that, given time and diplomatic effort, will eventually reunify politically with the mainland. The decision to give the "one China" policy a legal basis through an Act that envisages, as the last resort, military intervention to preserve its territorial integrity, came after President Chen Shiu-bian of Taiwan ran his 2004 re-election campaign on the promise to change the Constitution by a referendum to underline the island's "sovereign and independent" status. Although he toned down the separatist rhetoric following his re-election, it resurfaced in the island's legislative elections last December. Clearly, by including in the draft Bill a provision for the use, should the need arise, of "non-peaceful methods," China wants to put in place a deterrent to any plan for drastic action splittist politicians in Taiwan might have up their sleeves, thus making a military confrontation between the two sides less likely than it seemed in the past.

Taiwanese pro-independence leaders have predictably described the proposed anti-secession law as a design by China to annex the island by force. But the draft Bill makes it clear that Beijing favours only a peaceful reunification, emphasising that only this "best serves the fundamental interests of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included, as it is conducive to fostering a warm affection among compatriots on both sides, to peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation." Among the peaceful methods the Bill envisages are greater contacts between the people on both sides, closer economic ties, direct air and shipping services, and exchanges in education, science and technology, culture, health, and sports. Indeed, the Chinese Government has already demonstrated a willingness to promote friendly relations with Taiwan by permitting during the recent Spring Festival the first cross-Strait direct charter flights in 55 years. While the draft Bill sets out what is non-negotiable — the "one China" principle — it provides plenty of room for manoeuvre through the "one country, two systems" formula, specifically to take into account the history of Taiwan and the aspirations of its people. Even the decision to call it an "anti-secession" law rather than a "reunification" law is an indication that China's parameters on the Taiwan question are broad and allow for flexibility.

The Taiwanese regime should view the proposed law, which stresses that "any issue" can be discussed provided the one China principle is adhered to, as an opportunity to begin a dialogue with the Chinese Government to end the cross-Straits hostility. This is what the people of Taiwan desire. Going by President Chen's re-election by the narrowest of margins, and the poor performance of his party in the legislative elections, Taiwanese voters have tired of irresponsible leaders who advocate a collision course with Beijing. Should Mr. Chen decide to persist with adventurism, he will find himself isolated in the international community. The United States clearly does not want to be pushed into a confrontation with China, one of its key economic partners. It is time Taiwan's leaders read the writing on the wall, both at home and abroad. There is not the ghost of a chance of their getting away with any declaration of independence.

[The Duke]

I wish it were so.