By Kevin D.
Williamson
Tuesday, May 03,
2022
It is a little bit surreal to hear China’s
rulers and their servants talk about Taiwan. It is a little like a little kid
who is very, very committed to his imaginary friend.
In the recent session of China’s
rubber-stamp ersatz parliament, there were many energetic denunciations of
“separatist” elements seeking “independence” for Taiwan, according to
English-language media reports. When former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe
wrote a Los Angeles Times op-ed comparing Taiwan’s situation vis-à-vis China to Ukraine’s
relationship with Russia, the Chinese consul general in Los Angeles wrote
angrily to the newspaper:
The
situations in Taiwan and Ukraine cannot be compared. Taiwan is an inalienable
part of China, where the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal
government. This One-China Principle is explicitly stated in both joint
communiqués for establishing China-U.S. and China-Japan diplomatic ties.
In one sense, the consul general is
absolutely right. In another sense, he is absolutely full of it.
There is a considerable degree of ritual
in Beijing’s fretting about the “independence” of Taiwan, which has been an
independent country — and a thriving democracy with a sophisticated economy —
for many years now. Likewise, to call the Taiwanese “separatists” is very
strange in that Taiwan has been separate from Beijing for
decades and decades.
On the other hand, it is the case that
both the United States and China — and Japan — officially buy into the “One
China” policy, which is a fundamental part of the basis of diplomatic relations
between Washington and Beijing. Under “One China,” Washington officially
acknowledges just what the consul general says: “Taiwan is an inalienable part
of China, where the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government.”
Washington has no official relations with Taipei — Taiwan in fact has normal
diplomatic relations with only a baker’s dozen of countries, mostly small and
obscure ones (Nauru, Palau, etc.) a few more prominent ones (Belize, Guatemala,
Haiti) and one of great symbolic importance: the Holy See.
The United States maintained relations
with Taiwan for decades after its establishment until President Jimmy Carter
suddenly abandoned Taiwan in 1979 to pursue a closer relationship with the
so-called People’s Republic of China on the theory that Beijing could be a
reliable part of a united front against Moscow and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, then our chief global adversary. The United States
maintains robust political, cultural, economic, and military relations with
Taiwan, a country that, as far as the official story in Washington is
concerned, does not exist. The two nations do more than $100 billion in trade
annually, but Washington does not recognize the government in Taipei.
There is a delusional Taiwanese version of
the “One China” policy, too, the official view of the Kuomintang (the
Nationalist Party or KMT) that there is one China and that the regime in Taipei
is the legitimate government of all of it. KMT traditionally opposes
“Taiwanization” and emphasizes closer relations with Beijing — not exactly what
you’d expect from an anticommunist nationalist party, but it is a complex
situation. The center-left Democratic Progressive Party, which currently runs
the show in Taipei, also calls itself a nationalist party, but the nation it
means is Taiwan, not a notional unified China.
Washington accepted the One China fiction
as a Cold War expedient, but the expedient has outlived its expediency. As I
noted in an earlier newsletter, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an act of
naked international aggression, but a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be — on
paper, as a formality, in the official view of the United States — an internal
matter, Beijing taking extraordinary measures to reincorporate a breakaway
province. That isn’t how things actually stand, of course, but the “One China”
fiction matters — for one thing, it provides Beijing with a fig leaf if not a
moral permission slip, and, for another, it actually encourages Beijing to
believe that it can act as though “One China” described the real world.
Washington calls its Taiwan policy one of “strategic ambiguity,” and, while
ambiguity certainly has its uses, it is also dangerous.
Shinzo Abe writes:
Russia’s
invasion is not only an armed violation of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty,
but also an attempt to overthrow the government of a sovereign state with
missiles and shells. On this point, there is no controversy in the international
community over the interpretation of international law and the UN Charter.
While the extent to which countries participate in sanctions against Russia has
differed, no country has claimed that Russia is not in serious violation of
international law.
By
contrast, China claims that Taiwan is “part of its own country,” and the US and
Japanese position is to respect this claim. Neither Japan nor the US has
official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and most countries around the world
do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. Unlike in Ukraine, Chinese
leaders could claim that any invasion of Taiwan that China launches is
necessary to suppress anti-government activities in one of its own regions, and
that such acts therefore would not violate international law.
When
Russia annexed Crimea, the international community ultimately acquiesced, even
though Russia had violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Given this precedent, it is
not surprising that Chinese leaders may very well expect the world to be more
tolerant should they, too, adopt the logic of “regional” — rather than
national — subjugation.
This logic
has made strategic ambiguity untenable.
Under the Biden administration and a
surprisingly robust bipartisan congressional consensus, the United States has —
to its credit — undertaken unexpected and extraordinary measures to support
Kyiv against the predations of Vladimir Putin. Putin complains that the United
States is conducting a proxy war against Russia, and Putin is not far from
wrong. President Biden dices it pretty fine when he insists, “We’re not
attacking Russia; we’re helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian
aggression.”
While there are critical lacunae in the
U.S. and EU sanctions regime, the United States and our European allies are
doing everything short of sending regular troops into the battle. Weapons and
equipment supplied by the United States and European governments are being used
by a Ukrainian military that is — and should be — conducting operations not
only inside Ukraine but also inside Russia. It seems likely that at some point
Moscow will decide that the United States is an undeclared belligerent in the
Ukraine war, and, if that time comes, Moscow will have a pretty good case. The
United States and the Biden administration are right to take a hard line here,
but we should as a country be clear in our own minds about what that means.
While it is something close to a metaphysical certainty that U.S. forces would
sweep the Russians off the battlefield like toy soldiers in a direct
confrontation between conventional forces, there are obvious risks to such a
confrontation (Putin has a considerable nuclear arsenal) and non-obvious risks
as well.
In many important ways, our current
confrontation with Moscow is a useful test run for our likely future
confrontation with Beijing. It is certainly a useful one for Beijing, which now
has a good understanding — one hopes it is a sobering understanding — of the
likely scope and intensity of U.S. and European sanctions that might be
deployed against a too-adventurous China, and the capabilities and limitations
of what the Western world can bring to the fight short of putting troops in the
field. President Biden is not exactly an inspiring or energetic leader — or, in
many regards, even a credible one — but the country is in some ways less
divided than had been supposed, and when figures such as Tucker Carlson and J.
D. Vance attempted to pull a cynical Charles Lindbergh on the Ukraine war, they
got their fingers burned. Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, Olaf
Scholz, and Ursula von der Leyen all together might not add up to one Winston
Churchill, but there is reason to think that we can manage in this case without
one. This isn’t an age of heroes, but there is still work to be done.
Which brings us back to the tense Taiwan
Strait.
Senior figures in the Biden administration
have been holding talks with their U.K. counterparts with the goal of
developing a better-coordinated policy on China and Taiwan. Similar outreach
has been undertaken toward our European partners. The new AUKUS security bloc was launched with an eye toward China, too. There are many in
Washington, London, and Brussels — and Taipei — who worry that the war in
Ukraine is a prelude.
From the Financial
Times:
In a sign
of the enhanced co-operation with the UK, the HMS Queen Elizabeth,
a British aircraft carrier, last year spent more than six months deployed in
the Indo-Pacific. Heino Klinck, a former top Pentagon Asia official, welcomed
the US-UK consultations on Taiwan. He said they came on the heels of European
naval deployments in the Indo-Pacific that increased last year after the Trump
administration had held discussions with European allies about boosting
operations in the South China Sea.
“Deterring
Chinese aggression against Taiwan is in everyone’s interest. It is not just an
Indo-Pacific issue, it is a global issue,” said Klinck. “US military planners
are not counting on Germany or France sending warships, or Britain sending a
carrier in the case of a conflict over Taiwan. But when those countries send
ships to the South China Sea, or transit the Taiwan Strait, it sends a strong
signal to China.”
A senior
Taiwanese official said Taipei was aware of the US efforts to involve more
allies in its Taiwan planning. “They’ve been doing it with Japan and Australia,
and now they’re trying to do it with Britain,” he said.
It surely is the case that “deterring
Chinese aggression against Taiwan is in everyone’s interest.” It is in
Beijing’s interest, to begin with, even if Beijing doesn’t know it.
And so the HMS Queen Elizabeth patrols
the Indo-Pacific, and the bland old men who sit behind desks in the world’s
capitals move their chessmen around the board. The situation is a complex one.
But I cannot help thinking that we might simplify it a great deal by dispensing
with the lie — which is what the “One China” policy is.
Perhaps it was true in some sense at some time. But the fact is that Taiwan
today is as much of a real country as Germany or France or the United States.
If we mean to take seriously our
historical commitment to Taiwan, then the thing to do is to be plain about the
fact that we’d think of China’s invading Taiwan the same way as we’d think of
its invading one of these.
But that isn’t true, either.
And Furthermore . . .
Sovereignty is a subject that seems to
draw to itself all sorts of funny little fictions. We pretend that China and
Taiwan are one country and that Taiwan isn’t sovereign. We treat countries such
as Pakistan as sovereign even though the government doesn’t actually control
much of the country. I think about this sometimes in the case of the U.S.
government’s relationship with the Indian nations, whose sovereignty is an
official fiction to which we remain very strongly committed. I am no expert on
native issues and am entirely open to the argument that Washington should take
tribal sovereignty seriously, but Washington doesn’t — see, for example, how
little tribal sovereignty means when it comes to the so-called War on Drugs. I
can’t help thinking that some kind of rectification is needed, that we should
either stop pretending we believe in tribal sovereignty or start acting like we
do.
And Further-er-more . . .
There is a scene in The Lion in
Winter that perfectly encapsulates the might-makes-right politics that
we liberals and idealists are always trying to get past but never can. In a
testy confrontation between Henry II of England and his French counterpart,
Philip II, Hank the Deuce insists that a certain French territory is his. “By
whose authority?” Philip demands. “It’s got my troops all over it,” Henry
answers. “That makes it mine.”
Words About Words
Kevin, what do you think of the use of
“Nazis” here?
The “here” links to a Federalist headline
reading: “Mask Nazis Who
Terrorized Americans For Years Are Worried They Might Get Mocked For Mask
Obsession.”
About that, a few thoughts:
First, I will give myself a preemptive
“Lighten up, Francis.” We’ve been talking about the Soup Nazi, grammar
Nazis, HOA Nazis, and the like for a long, long time. In terms of the things that have
contributed to the coarsening of our political culture, I put the humorous
abuse of “Nazi” way down there with those “In
This House, We Believe” signs. It isn’t something to be taken seriously,
probably.
(On a related note, I think that comedians
such as Mel Brooks are right that, having defeated Adolf Hitler and his
National Socialism, the best thing we can do is to ridicule their memory.)
That being said . . .
I think we should call each other “Nazis”
a lot less in our political conversation. The same goes for “Marxists” and
“fascists” and “Stalinists” and a great many similar terms of abuse.
There are a few Nazis in American public
life and have been over the years: I recently wrote about the ACLU’s defense
of the National Socialist Party of American Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell’s
rights under the First Amendment, a reminder that the American Left was once liberal. (It is a great
loss to our civil society that the ACLU no longer believes in that sort of
thing.) But there are not many actual Nazis or Nazi admirers. We have
Jew-hating weirdos such as Louis Farrakhan and people of that ilk, and a handful
of Twitter trolls who loom large among the Very Online. (It is easy to
exaggerate how many: As Megan McArdle recently pointed out on the Remnant podcast,
the people involved in a headline-generating Twitter convulsion would all
together not fill up a good-sized Texas high-school football stadium.) A Nazi
is a specific kind of person with a specific point of view, and there are all
sorts of ways to be bad and wrong without being a Nazi. I think it is important
to pay attention to those distinctions: If you want to understand a white
nationalist such as Richard Spencer, for example, it is helpful to understand what he actually thinks and
what he actually wants to do.
People got their noses out of joint
when I twitted
Bernie Sanders, whose views are both strongly nationalist and socialist, as a
national socialist. But the thing about National Socialism
is, those maniacs were serious about the nationalism and the socialism — we do
ourselves a disservice to pretend that antisemitism and dictatorship were the
whole of National Socialism.
There are a few actual Marxists and
Marxians in public life, such as Slavoj Žižek, and a considerably larger number
of socialists, including self-identified socialists such as Bernie Sanders and
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. One of the best — and most honest — professors I had
in college described himself as a Marxist (back then, it was still sort of
fashionable), though I am not sure he still does. And you should listen to
people when they tell you what they are: Take Steve Bannon seriously when he
calls himself a “Leninist.”
As I wrote in The Smallest
Minority, Americans who have made a religion of politics — and who have
become disconnected from such traditional sources of meaning and connection as
family and church — dream of an apocalyptic conflict between themselves and
those they perceive to be their enemies, and they can understand themselves
only in terms of their enemies because their own characters lack sufficient
content to construct an identity on a positive basis rather than a merely
reactive one. That is why the only thread connecting the various elements of
the contemporary Right is anti-Leftism and the only thread connecting the
factions of the Left is anti-Rightism. If they’re for it, we’re against it —
it’s as simple as that.
Abraham Lincoln, who was active during a
considerably more challenging and bloody chapter of American history, rejected
the notion that we should understand each other as enemies. (As a matter of
rhetoric, that fluffy stuff about the “mystic chords of memory” seems to me to
be much less moving than the sturdy plain syllables: “We are not enemies, but
friends. We must not be enemies.”) In these times of relative peace and
prosperity, we ought to be able to do at least as much. At some point, we are
going to have to deal with the fact that “Own
the Libs!” is not compatible with: “Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you.”
I think that if your politics necessitates
that you regard your fellow countrymen as enemies, then you need to rethink
your politics. And, possibly, that you need to grow the f*** up.
Of course, I have contributed to that at
times, and have repented of the fact. I expect to repent of it again, and to
keep repenting of it for as long as I am writing.
And that being written . . .
If I’m being totally honest, I’m more
irritated by the hijacking of the name of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist for
some dopey knucklehead newsletter than I am about Seinfeld’s “Soup
Nazi.”
No comments:
Post a Comment