Tag: Taiwan
Cross-strait optimism 2, with a twist
Jonas Brown continues his report on an all day conference last week at the Carnegie Endowment:
The third panel discussed cross-strait relations in a regional context. Yann-Huei Song, a research fellow at Academia Sinica in Taiwan, highlighted the complexity of Taiwan’s position in the region. Taipei must negotiate tense multilateral conflicts in the East and South China Seas while simultaneously maintaining a pro-U.S. orientation and developing delicate cross-strait ties with Beijing. He suggested that President Ma’s East China Sea peace initiative could be applied in the South China Sea and that Taiwan’s role in ICAO and other international organizations provide a precedent for Taipei’s participation in devising a South China Sea code of conduct.
Chyungly Lee, research fellow at the Institute of International Relations and professor at National Chengchi University in Taiwan, observed that American “rebalancing” had succeeded in strengthening regional organizations in the Asia-Pacific, leading to more action-oriented coordination between states, with a particular increase in functional security cooperation. This trend has benefitted the entire region as well as the US, suggesting that greater participation by Taiwan in regional organizations and agreements would only enhance these benefits.
Michael Auslin, director of Japan Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said that a paradigm-shift has occurred in cross-strait relations since the end of the Cold War. Cross-strait relations were initially the focus of US interests in the region and a key rationale for the “Asia pivot,” but cross-strait rapprochement has brought Taipei into the mainstream of regional politics. Ma’s approach to Beijing resembles that of other regional leaders: defusing tensions while also attempting to maintain a balance of power. Regional dynamics—not the US role—are now the central factor influencing cross-strait relations.
Renmin University professor Canrong Jin emphasized Beijing’s satisfaction and optimism regarding both cross-strait relations and China’s role in the region. With the exception of China’s dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, a sense of calm and promise pervades in Beijing, despite a widely held, anxious perception that right-wing nationalism is on the rise in Japan. Anxiety about American “rebalancing” has eased because U.S.-Russia relations and the struggling U.S. economy are both viewed as checks on American assertiveness in Asia.
Commentator Michael Swaine, senior associate at CEIP, questioned the tendency by many observers to view cross-strait relations as an indicator of Chinese and American positions on other issues. He noted in particular the—in his view—unsubstantiated talk about risk to US credibility in the region should the US shift its position on cross-strait relations or the East/South China Sea territorial disputes. This line of reasoning reminds him of Vietnam War-era domino thinking. More highly nuanced, contextualized scholarship is needed in this area, Swaine said.
The fourth panel covered “Domestic Developments in Mainland China.” Chih-Chieh Chou, a professor at National Cheng Kung University, outlined the dilemmas faced by the current government as it tries to maintain stability while enacting the political reforms necessary to transition to an innovation-based economy. Chou expressed cautious optimism about China’s macroeconomic growth and political reform. He noted areas of progress, such as the growing space for civil society activity, but also acknowledged daunting challenges, including the urban-rural gap, high income inequality, lack of government transparency, and tight government control over resources.
Chung-Min Tsai, a political science professor at National Chengchi University, said it is still too early to assess Xi’s leadership. He questioned the usefulness of Xi’s “Chinese Dream:” Will it lead to concrete, widespread improvement in quality of life, or to is it an empty government fantasy that will simply highlight the chasm between the Chinese people and their government? In an analysis of China’s political and economic trajectory much less optimistic than Chou’s, George Washington University professor David Shambaugh described a sclerotic political system, with no evidence of meaningful political reform and little sign of a successful transition toward an innovation-based economy. He agreed with Tsai that the “Chinese Dream” is an “empty vessel” but suggested that its open-endedness could be positive, allowing for a bottom-up interpretation by China’s intellectual community.
Fan Li, director of the World and China Institute in Beijing, observed steps toward economic liberalization under Xi—including the creation of the Shanghai Free-Trade Zone and greater freedom for private businesses—but contrasted this economic progress with the absence of political reform cited by Shambaugh.
Commentator Kenneth Lieberthal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, reemphasized the fundamental contradiction between recent attempts to both strengthen the private sector and centralize political power. Recognizing the complexity of his domestic challenges, Xi has made de-escalation of tensions with the U.S. the touchstone of his foreign policy, so that he can concentrate on consolidating his personal control and revivifying the Communist Party.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Cross-strait optimism 1
Jonas Brown, who will be getting his third masters’ degree at SAIS in December, reports:
The government shutdown last week led President Obama to cancel his long-planned Asia trip, prompting media speculation about the negative implications for his “rebalancing” to Asia and a potential boost to China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Against this backdrop, Taiwanese, Chinese and American experts met at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) last Thursday and Friday for a conference entitled “Cross-Strait Developments in 2013: New Trends and Prospects.” The event included four panel discussions and a keynote speech by Kin Moy, deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Each panel featured four presenters and a commentator, tasked with synthesizing the panelists’ observations and offering concluding remarks.
Arthur Shuh-Fan Ding, a research fellow at National Chengchi University in Taipei, led off the first panel discussion “The Washington-Tapei-Beijing Triangle.” Focusing on Washington-Beijing relations, he predicted a continued mix of moderate cooperation and managed competition. China assumed a more coercive role in the region after the 2008 global financial crisis weakened the US economy. Absent a more complete economic rejuvenation, the US will be unable to regain the credibility necessary to curb Beijing’s assertiveness. Kwei-Bo Huang, a professor at National Chengchi University, emphasized increased participation in international organizations and agreements—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement—as the key to Taiwan’s “survival.” US support will be vital in this effort.
George Washington University international affairs professor Robert Sutter used the Taiwanese debate over nuclear power as a case study to highlight the intensely partisan nature of its domestic politics. This hyper-politicization of issues has caused fatigue among the Taiwanese and concern among American leaders—the irony here was noted—that partisan rivalries will prevent Taiwan from pursuing a coherent approach to critical economic and security issues.
Peng Li, a University of Maryland Fulbright scholar visiting from Xiamen University in China, outlined Beijing’s gradualist approach to unification. Beijing aims to establish a constructive political environment that will permit pragmatic solutions to specific problems in the short term and pave the way for a formal agreement on Taiwan’s status in the future. He expressed concern that a return to power by Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) might derail this plan and urged the US to support Beijing’s efforts to develop a sustainable political dialogue with Taipei.
Commentator Cynthia Watson, a professor at the National Defense University, underlined the incongruity between Beijing’s hope for slow, consistent progress toward unification and the Taiwan government’s inherently unpredictable democratic process. She expressed doubt that even a full US economic recovery would result in a large injection of resources into American “rebalancing,” due to the current lack of domestic support for expanding foreign policy investment.
In his keynote speech, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kin Moy affirmed the US’s “enduring friendship” with Taiwan and sought to dispel any notions that the relationship has deteriorated. He cited close, ongoing U.S.-Taiwan cooperation on economic, security, and environmental issues. Moy expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, noting that the US had backed Taiwan’s membership in the WTO, as well as its attendance at the WHO’s 2009 World Health Assembly and the 2013 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) congress. He said that enlarging the Trans Pacific Partnership requires consensus among existing members. Taiwan will need to commit to further economic liberalization. Moy emphasized that American “rebalancing” entails increased cooperation with both the Beijing and Taipei. There is nothing inconsistent in strengthening ties with both governments.
To begin the second panel discussion, entitled “Opportunities and Challenges in Cross-Strait Relations,” Chinese Culture University professor Chien-Min Chao outlined President Xi Jinping’s “pragmatic” approach to relations with Taiwan. Xi is concentrating on consolidating and developing existing modes of economic and diplomatic cooperation. Taiwan’s guest status at the ICAO congress is evidence of his flexibility. Xi’s stance provides an opportunity for both trust-building and concrete progress on trade talks that should be embraced by Taiwan. The Mainland could help deescalate tensions by easing its military build-up along the Taiwan Strait.
Returning the discussion to Taiwan’s domestic politics, Taipei University professor Samuel Shiouh-Guang Wu said that the Mainland has adopted a more flexible attitude toward Taiwan in part because by demonstrating the economic benefits of closer cross-strait relations, Beijing hopes to short-circuit public support for the DPP. DPP ascendance in Taiwan’s 2014 local elections or 2016 presidential election would introduce new uncertainty into cross-strait relations to the detriment of Taiwan’s interests, because Beijing might become more assertive if faced with a resistant DPP leadership. It is therefore in Taiwan’s interest to maintain the status-quo through a “no surprises” approach to cross-strait diplomacy.
Stimson Center fellow Alan Romberg acknowledged that Taiwan’s tumultuous domestic politics will continue, but both he and Tsinghua University professor Shulong Chu predicted a continuation of Beijing’s tough, patient (“economic first, political later, easy first, difficult later”) approach to Taiwan. Like Peng Li, both forecast stable cross-strait relations focused on steadily developing Track II dialogue in preparation for future Track I talks. Romberg noted an outside chance for a peace accord before 2016 if Beijing explicitly decouples such an agreement from the issue of Taiwan’s political status.
Commentator Bernard Cole, a professor at National Defense University, closed by emphasizing the positive trends in cross-strait relations. The increasing number of direct flights across the Taiwan Strait and the growing number of Taiwanese citizens on the Mainland indicate the degree to which economic and cultural ties have been strengthened, presaging gradual progress toward an eventual peaceful agreement on Taiwan’s status.
RSS - Posts
