Arms and Economies
October 16th, 2008
Submitted by: Morgan O’Hara
Many of you probably know that the U.S. has vowed to protect Taiwan against Chinese aggression - and that China has vowed to re-establish Chinese rule on the island. Fortunately, China has pursued a ’soft’ approach, coaxing Taiwan towards the motherland with practical measures (and even pandas). A full scale conflict over Taiwan’s independence seems less and less likely. But I noticed this article tucked away in the back pages of the NY Times. Why do you think we are selling arms to Taiwan? Is it for the money, or are we trying to make a point? And more importantly, how will China react?
In “The Post-American World”, Fareed Zakaria talks of China’s ‘peaceful development’. They move cautiously on the world stage, trying to avoid conflict. While we might not stoke China’s nationalist fires, I think it’s likely that we do stir up some serious resentment. What comes to my mind is the ‘forgive but never forget’ adage. Should we be pursuing a more amenable approach towards China, and will any of this come back to haunt us?
Also, Zakaria states that “China needs the American market to sell its goods; the United States needs China to finance its debt.” And in financing our debt, China is losing a lot of money. Simply put, China’s been doing a poor job investing - they’ve given away hundreds of billions of dollars. Does something have to give? And if so, what? Will this financial crisis pull us closer together, or push us further apart?
Entry Filed under: China
5 Comments Add your own
1. Chris Carr | October 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
People in China are as patriotic about China as Americans are about America. To wit, after two centuries of humiliation at the hands of foreign powers they will not stand for their government appearing to be weak to countries like the US. (The Qing Dynasty fell for this reason; as did the Nationalists in 1949). China and most mainland Chinese also see the return of Taiwan to the motherland as one of the final and complete steps to restore China to her former glory of the pre-Opium War past. Thus, when the US takes such steps as selling arms to Taiwan, the Chinese government must in turn react so as to not appear weak to their own populace. Panzies don’t stay in power in any country.
Hopefully, this will all fizzle out and things move back to normal as is often the case and after the Chinese government engages in some public saber rattling and invective to show their populace they won’t be bullied and the protesters in the street go back to work. But the risk is when that one, outlier event comes where they can’t/won’t back down because the Chinese public won’t stand for a government that will be bullied and they throw them out of power. Then, my friends, when you have a government that must act on the extreme side to save face and its own hide, we run the risk of a military conflict neither side wants but both somehow let themselves get pulled into. While this may appear to be unlikely given our deep economic integration with China, you just never know …. anybody remember how tense things became between the US and China over Taiwan in the mid-1990s or so?
2. Morgan O'Hara | October 18th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Thank you for the eye-opening comment Dr. Carr. I wonder: who makes the decision to sell arms to Taiwan? Does the President sign off on that? And is money the main motive?
3. Chris Carr | October 19th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Selling arms to another country, and the approval that goes with it, is normally executed through various defense administrative agencies. Said agencies often answer to the president (e.g., agency head appointed by the President, authority given to the agency set up by the Executive branch, etc.), so the buck does indeed starts and stops with him at the end of the day. But note that Dem and Repub Presidents alike have sold arms to Taiwan over the years.
I don’t think money is the main motive; rather, in my view, the main motive is geopolitical and a part of America’s attempt to shape the world in its own image (which is not always a bad thing; there are a number of things we stand for that are worth emulating). I think said Presidents and their staff, and Congress, do not understand China and/or much of Asia for that matter from a cultural and/or historical standpoint, and they assume that said sales to Taiwan will hold China in check. But if anything, per my original comment, said strategy inflames the situation. The intent of these US policy makers and king pins is not necessarily bad or malicious in my view; they just tend to be very ill informed and often make their decisions based on a part of the world they know little about, and they assume that decision X will lead to result Y, and that is not often the case.
Keep in mind that most people in Washington have never even been to China or India, yet they profess to know about these regions of the world and/or how to do business with them. Some of those dolts, on both sides of the political isle, may even have a hard time finding said countries on a map and/or when they do travel there the only thing they see is the nice Peking duck meal in the confines of their five star hotel.
4. Nick Chamness | October 20th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Such arms deals with other countries generally seem to ruffle somebody’s feathers. Seeing as our country produces and owns a large portion of the world’s sophisticated weaponry, it only makes sense that we would be one of the major dealers. It always amazes me that with the flick of a pen, the American government can generate such hostilities. Everyday these powerful pens accept or reject measures that change not only our lives but those in other countries.
While these agencies serve under the President, I find it hard to believe that he has a hand in all of these decisions (that is what the administrative agencies are for). When such decisions go bad can we blame the president directly? When presidential minions make the wrong choices they should ultimately be punished, but how many times do we hear that the the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has made a terrible mistake and its leaders are being remove?
Dr. Carr’s comment regarding the White House and Congress not understanding China/Asia,is a very valid. Unfortunately it is not limited to this geographic area. They may not be trying to make a wrong choice/decision, but their ignorance leads them down this road. Such ignorance is not limited to our government. The majority of U.S. citizens do not even own passports. While I could not find a definitive source, roughly 25% of Americans even own passports. I find it very hard to believe that one can make a proper decision regarding a another country based on information they read in a book.
This type of ignorance has lead to trouble in the past. Study abroad programs, and the Chindia trip are attempts at quelling this rampant ignorance. Pushing for our youth to travel will ultimately pay dividends in our government. There are college students right now who are on track to become our leaders someday, and arming them with worldly knowledge based on first hand accounts is the first step to normalizing relations with the international community. If we continue to elect leaders that as Dr. Carr says, “have a hard time finding said countries on a map”, then we are doomed to make repetitive mistakes when it comes to foreign policy.
Would forcing these leaders to slog through the impoverished parts of both China and Taiwan change their worldly prospective?
5. Chris Carr | October 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Nice. Good discussion thread.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed