Obsession in Beijing - China's obsession with Taiwan - Brief Article

National Review, March 20, 2000

Reading the Chinese government's 11,000-word white paper on Taiwan brings to mind G. K. Chesterton's remark that madness consists not so much in a deficiency of reason as in an excess of it. Here, in all its terrifying minuteness, is the logic of the lunatic. At one point, the white paper argues-at some length-that to take into consideration the wishes of the actual people of Taiwan would be "undemocratic." One recalls that 30 years ago, this same Chinese Communist party was solemnly instructing its people that extreme leftism was a rightist deviation. Here, naked and shameless, is the demented arrogance of rulers who for 70 years have conducted their affairs by murdering anyone who disagreed with them. Here are 11,000 reasons that current U.S. policy on China-made up of equal parts incoherence and wishful thinking-is wildly, dangerously misguided.

It is time for someone to say out loud what many China experts murmur in private: that in the matter of Taiwan, the Chinese obsession has no justification. Talk of "recovering" Taiwan ignores the fact that it has been ruled from China, as a Chinese province, for just twelve of the last 4,000 years.

The obsession, however, serves two purposes for the Communists. First, it helps them obtain popular legitimacy-a scarce commodity now that the ideological foundations of their rule have crumbled to nothing, and those sensational economic-growth curves have begun to level out. They respond by stoking the fires of nationalist ardor, keeping ever alive the memory of past "humiliations"-a good Chinese citizen is expected to have "moved on" from the horrors of Maoist rule (1949-76) while maintaining a high level of indignation about the Opium War (1840-42).

Second, the regime furthers its ambition to be master of Asia. As Ross H. Munro explained in these pages (Oct. 11, 1999), "Once China has Taiwan in its grasp, it will sit astride Japan's southern sea lanes, a lifeline connecting Japan to its petroleum supply as well as to several key markets. China would also effectively control all other nations' access from the east to the South China Sea, the crucial link between the Pacific and Indian oceans. The security of the Philippines would be immediately and acutely threatened, and other Southeast Asian nations would find themselves more vulnerable to Chinese coercion." Defeating an American policy of protecting Taiwan-or worse, showing America's commitment to be weak-would shift the balance of power throughout Asia away from the U.S. and toward China.

America also has a moral stake here that ought to be declared explicitly. This country is the champion of liberty. We have watched with wonder and joy as the people of Taiwan have erected the first constitutional democracy in Chinese history. The crushing of that bright flower under the heel of a brutish and lawless despotism would be an assault on all we believe, and have struggled for. Normal relations-diplomatic or commercial-with China would be impossible after such an outrage. In this context, it would not hurt to counter China's arrogant blustering with some tough words of our own-pointing out, for example, that an embargo on Chinese goods entering our country would shut down the Chinese economy swiftly.

The U.S.-and the rest of the world, too, but first and foremost the U.S.-faces a huge and difficult problem. The problem is not Taiwan, or even China; the problem is the Chinese Communist party. Coping with it will be a very high test of statesmanship.

In which connection we need to form some judgment, in this election year, about which of the candidates might pass that test (each of whom, of course, should study Mark Helprin's important piece in this issue, beginning on page 36). Let us begin by asking all presidential candidates how they would handle the current crisis. Sen. Bradley, to his credit, has given a forthright answer: He believes that China has a right to do as it pleases with Taiwan, and that it is no business of ours to interfere. Thank you, Senator. Now may we hear from the others?