Left Flank

Joshua Foust reminds us of the unromantic Tibet. And then, he offers this sage, post-Kosovo advice:

However simply looking down upon China with Holy Western Outrage is not a solution. Ignoring the priggish and quite frankly offensive Han chauvinism (dwarfing even the gaudiest excesses of American chauvinism, which rarely goes beyond empty sloganeering and angry TV pundits), the current Chinese government—which kindly props up our entire financial system through its generous purchasing of our securities and bonds and cheap exports—literally stakes its existence on the government's infallibility. Allowing Tibet independence would require allowing Xinjiang independence… which would also require Taiwan's independence. Many Americans would cheer at the prospect, but hopefully not with the understanding that Chinese society is actually much less homogeneous and far less stable than the CCP likes us to realize. And, like it or not, a stable China means a stable America. We disrupt that at our own peril.

So yes, let us join hands with the spiritual, romantic Tibetan people—I cannot deny their appeal. But let us also do so in a proper context, taking a sober look at the true history and true issues surrounding it. Nothing in anyone's past can justify the horrors visited upon any of the CCP's hundreds of millions of victims. But that is why we should agitate for their redress in a constructive manner—which precludes angrily stomping our feet and shouting slogans. Brave people are literally dying for their freedom in China: let us do them the courtesy of seriously advancing their concerns.

The rest of the post is more informative than all of those western deconstructions on CNN.

CFR's Jayshree Bajoria (cross-Strait economic "dependence") and The China Beat's Paul R Katz ("politics of the pocketbook") both agree economic policy and PRC played a major role in the KMT victory in Taiwanese presidential elections. Yet, there's more to the election than just self-interest.

Bajoria puts paid to the notion Taiwanese voters are ready to return to Mother China:

But a policy of greater cross-Strait cooperation from Taipei needs to be met with a similar approach from China, writes Alan D. Romberg, director of the East AsiaProgram at the Henry L. Stimson Center. He says China's failure to do so «will risk destroying the opportunity that now exists to stabilize cross-Strait relations for a considerable time to come.»

The KMT win in presidential elections may reflect the public's desire for less provocative policies toward the mainland, but it does not diminish Taiwan's desire (WSJ) to be treated as a sovereign state for the foreseeable future, writes Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute. «If China can accept that important but limited improvement in relations, we shall see a period of welcome calm in the Taiwan Strait.» Following China's crackdown on pro-independence protests in Tibet, rhetoric from both candidates made it clear that they were not willing to compromise on what they saw as the island's sovereignty (Taipei Times).

A recent opinion poll in Taiwan by U.S.-based Zogby International notes 63 percent of respondents viewed their country as a sovereign and independent country and 71 percent described themselves as Taiwanese. Only 5 percent said they were «Chinese.» The growing Taiwanese «identity» shift may also increase the voice for de jure independence, writes CFR Military Fellow Captain Jeffrey A. Harley in the Harvard International Review. Now is the time, he argues, for the United States to resolve its existing policy ambiguities in its relations with Taiwan and China.

Katz lauds Taiwanese political maturity:

What the KMT's return to power means for Taiwan's future remains to be seen, but one should give utmost credit to the maturation of its democratic system. Unlike what happened following the presidential election of 2000, when the KMT lost power, this time there were no protests or riots, just tears and concern for what may lie in store. The day after the election, my family and visited the venerable Huang Kunbin ??? (affectionately known as 'Uncle Kunbin' or Khun-pin peh ??? in Southern Min) at his some in Tainan County. The star of the touching documentary about Taiwan's farmers entitled "Let it Be" (Wumile ???), Khun-pin-beh is a symbol of all that is good about Taiwan. He was philosophical about the results, noting that: "When the curtain comes down, it's time for the play to end."

So, be scared, Seoul (for once, South Korean xenophobia and self-importance might serve a beneficial purpose)!

The CSM asks, "Will Beijing ever get the point?"

Time is on Taiwan's side as its democracy matures and its de facto independence becomes widely accepted. The "new" KMT cannot now return to its old authoritarian, corrupt ways or it will lose the very US support that keeps Taiwan from being swallowed by the dragon and allows democracy to flourish.

The US showed its resolve to defend Taiwan in 1996 during a cross-strait crisis in which China lobbed "test" missiles toward the island. Now this potential flash point of Asia has used its democracy once again to show the world – and especially China – how a people can collectively correct their leaders through ballots instead of bullets.

Shall I punctuate the point, after last year's 17th Party Congress farce? "The March 22 election was the second time this 'Chinese democracy' saw a transfer of power, serving as a model for what China could be." Michael Turton, even in his despair, adds color.

Another thing -- the atmosphere in Taipei is nightmarish. Never again will I spend an election there -- the conventional wisdom is totally out of touch with the reality of the electorate. In 2004 I stayed in Taichung and got a pretty good line on what would happen, but not this time. I used to describe what circulates in Taipei as a cloud cuckoo-land of KMT talking points, but even that isn't right -- I lack a good grip on the kind of language to characterize its vast and all-encompassing wrongness. As reporters were churning out articles saying that the election was going to be tight Ma win, as speakers everywhere were retreating to positions of nervous ambiguity, and people talking to both campaigns said it would be tight, voters were preparing to hand Ma a 17 point victory. On Friday the DPP was saying it was seeing a late surge for Frank Hsieh, which I didn't report because it so obviously reeked of lying spin. But some apparently did. Nobody I talked to in the capital even got a whiff of a 17 point Ma victory, though all thought he'd win. Certainly somebody knew, because there were massive capital inflows into Taiwan in the last week before the election as international capital prepared to hollow out Taiwan like a gourd invest in our fine nation in anticipation of a Ma victory. Ironically, the nearest polls were the nutcase polls in the pro-Ma papers, though a close examination will show they were nowhere near correct either.

Voter patterns! I'll have a full discussion on them later this week. One thing that really really really stands out here is the desperate need for thorough, credible, detailed survey work that is reliable through time. Tomorrow's analyses in Taipei are going to be largely groups of people talking without the numbers to back them up.

It all sounds like a modern democracy, even if most news organizations have their own pro-Beijing spin.

Should we keep a vigil for KMT autocracy?

I'm reluctant to praise full-bore Kosovo's independence from Serbia. I'm not alone in my skepticism of self-determination, although I'm not pleased with the company, or their reasons.

Fears that the move could inspire other separatist movements were confirmed almost immediately. On Sunday the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia announced that in the light of Kosovo's move, they would ask Russia and the UN to recognize their independence. And on Monday Chechen rebels fighting to secede from Russia hailed Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, comparing Pristina's fight against Serbia to their own struggle against Moscow.

Are we confusing self-determination with separatism? Separatist aspirations might not necessarily reflect democratic or majority impulses.

I'm even more skeptical, though, when Beijing's queasiness about self-determination is applied to Taiwan.

First, China could scale back the number of flights that its air force regularly makes over the straits. This would reduce the possibilities of an accident and could be visibly verified by the Taiwanese military and media, thereby building goodwill.

More permanently, China could announce a freeze in its military buildup across the straits from Taiwan. While the Chinese military has steadily manufactured short-range ballistic missiles, many are re-loads for existing launchers based in Fujian Province. Relocating those facilities might prove a logistical challenge, while storing reloads farther from their launch points would be rather meaningless. Declaring a freeze on the manufacture of new missiles and on the deployment of new units to launch them would make a significant contribution towards ensuring a peaceful resolution.

Additionally, China could expect a reciprocal response from Taiwan - as well as the United States, which has been steadily increasing its capabilities in the Western Pacific, including deployments of submarines and aircraft.

The peaceful emergence of Kosovo as an independent country provides an example which can contribute to a new, peaceful paradigm for China and Taiwan.

The threat to use force does not automatically ensure Taiwan's cultural and economic affinity with China, nor has it served to prevent Taiwan's steady press for independence.

Dialogue and renunciation of violence will better serve China's interests in ensuring a peaceful resolution of Taiwan's status.

There's an important distinction between Taiwan and Kosovo. Taiwan is de facto independent now, in ways Kosovo can only hope it can achieve, especially with so many states opposed to its new status. PRC, Russia (probably the most egregious offender in this cabal), and Serbia could adopt non-interventionist policies, regardless of their intentions concerning self-determination, because it is good for business. Accepting the advice to "go-slow" doesn't mean we have to penalize the aggrieved, to placate the bad intentions of the imperialistic. Criticizing the aggrieved states' position, but not the offending ones', for being equally, and antagonistically, destabilizing, is self-serving and hypocritical. The international community should guarantee the economic and civil liberties of disputed territories without undermining political tempers. The only way to avoid precipitate moves toward independence is to render the tactic unnecessary, not ask Taiwan to play dead.

Michael Goldfarb adds his strident support for Taiwan's deployment of the Hsiung Feng 2E (Brave Wind) land attack cruise missile, even if the Bush administration is balking. There are two other choice pro-Taipei quotes in the Defense News article Goldfarb excerpts worth emphasizing.

The officials said the HF-2E makes tactical and strategic sense.

«It is the politicians and diplomats who have problems with it,» the MND official said. «How many times have they asked Taiwan not to politicize defense? KMT [The Kuomintang] kills it because it pleases Beijing and Washington, and they think Beijing won't attack Taiwan once they are in power [in 2008]. A dangerous thought.»

(…)

Alexander Huang, a senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies who lives in Taipei, believes the HF-2E project can help Taiwan in missile-related technologies.

«The LACM [land attack cruise missile], if successfully developed, could be a tactical deterrent, and strategic bargaining chip in possible military CBMs,» or confidence-building measures, he said.

«Should a military conflict be unavoidable, firing LACMs with the Taiwan military emblem can indirectly give the U.S. some flexibility in diplomatic terms. Close command-to-command consultation and real-time notification between Taipei and Camp Smith will reduce the risk of unintended incidents. In short, I am not naïve nor hawkish, but I support the program.»

If all else fails, then perhaps the environmental argument that President Chen Shui-bien tabled on a trip to the Spratly's is a decent opening move.

On the heels of reading about how it's rough out there, and feeling fairly optimistic...

None of this is exactly cheerful, but it is not disastrous, either. Particular problems, like the monoline insurers, should be dealt with by particular remedies, not the warm bath of monetary policy. It is early days, but one choice for Mr Dinallo would be to corral their worst risks in a «bad bank», leaving the rest intact—and more tightly regulated.

As to decoupling, although the rest of the world remains somewhat vulnerable to America's troubles, most rich economies are in a slightly better shape than the United States, and most emerging ones are better able to withstand an American downturn than they were (see article). Many have plenty of reserves and flexible exchange rates, making a rerun of the 1997-98 crises unlikely. Many are growing nicely on the back of rising domestic demand and regional trade links. And many have strong budget positions, leaving room for fiscal loosening to offset weakening exports.

American policymakers also have tools to cushion—if not forestall—the downturn. Lower interest rates may not stop house prices falling, nor will they prevent banks from tightening their lending standards. But monetary policy can still stimulate the economy, as lower rates boost banks' profitability, bring down firms' borrowing costs and improve indebted consumers' cash flow (see article). Equally, fiscal policy will be a prop. Of course, President Bush promised too much when he suggested that a stimulus package would keep the economy «healthy». But Congress is rushing the $150 billion package through, and, even if it takes a while to reach firms and consumers, it will give the economy a boost.

Taken together, the signs from the world economy are troubling. The credit binge will not unwind quickly or gently. Asset prices will fall. But central bankers and regulators have the tools to stop a downturn from becoming a slump, so long as they use them sensibly. Reacting to market panic with panicky rate cuts is likely to make things worse rather than better. The Fed should always be the calm centre of a financial storm.

...I had to read James Fallows' answering the $1.4 Trillion Question (an informative essay worth reading):

What might poke a giant hole in that logic? Not necessarily a titanic struggle over the future of Taiwan. A simple mistake, for one thing. Another speech by Cheng Siwei—perhaps in response to a provocation by Lou Dobbs. A rumor that the oil economies are moving out of dollars for good, setting their prices in euros. Leaked suggestions that the Chinese government is hoping to buy Intel, leading to angry denunciations on the Capitol floor, leading to news that the Chinese will sit out the next Treasury auction. As many world tragedies have been caused by miscalculation as by malice.

Or pent-up political tensions, on all sides. China's lopsided growth—ahead in exports, behind in schooling, the environment, and everything else—makes the country socially less stable as it grows richer. Meanwhile, its expansion disrupts industries and provokes tensions in the rest of the world. The billions of dollars China pumps into the United States each week strangely seem to make it harder rather than easier for Americans to face their own structural problems. One day, something snaps. Suppose the CIC makes another bad bet—not another Blackstone but another WorldCom, with billions of dollars of Chinese people's assets irretrievably wiped out. They will need someone to blame, and Americans, for their part, are already primed to blame China back.

So, the shock comes. Does it inevitably cause a cataclysm? No one can know until it's too late. The important question to ask about the U.S.–China relationship, the economist Eswar Prasad, of Cornell, recently wrote in a paper about financial imbalances, is whether it has «enough flexibility to withstand and recover from large shocks, either internal or external.» He suggested that the contained tensions were so great that the answer could be no.

Today's American system values upheaval; it's been a while since we've seen too much of it. But Americans who lived through the Depression knew the pain real disruption can bring. Today's Chinese, looking back on their country's last century, know, too. With a lack of tragic imagination, Americans have drifted into an arrangement that is comfortable while it lasts, and could last for a while more. But not much longer.

Years ago, the Chinese might have averted today's pressures by choosing a slower and more balanced approach to growth. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they would in fact choose just the same path—they have gained so much, including the assets they can use to do what they have left undone, whenever the government chooses to spend them. The same is not true, I suspect, for the United States, which might have chosen a very different path: less reliance on China's subsidies, more reliance on paying as we go. But it's a little late for those thoughts now. What's left is to prepare for what we find at the end of the path we have taken.

I've spent so many years as a deficit hawk, I'm actually quite brain-tied right now. Fallows compares the current PRC-US financial relationship to the nuclear stalemate between the Soviet Union and the US during the Cold War. Well, there are still nukes around the world, and proliferation seems a certain probability. There's little hope that the US budget deficit, given Fallows' analogy, will disappear either. 50 years of this financial terror, it seems!

Nothing follows right now...

I guess I should just get used to reading the progressive perspective, on China, but on all aspects of foreign policy, since Senator Clinton is one of them.

Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that China will, decades from now, have both the capability and intent to confront us directly, and we must stay well prepared for that possibility. But we need China's help today to confront forces of destruction. We rely on China to stomp out outbreaks of avian flu and other nasty diseases before they spread here. U.S. inspectors are in three Chinese ports to help screen shipping containers for smuggled radioactive devices headed for our shores. Without Beijing's deep engagement, North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons. And we are never going to avoid a catastrophic climate crisis without China on board.

Rather than preparing for a military confrontation with a big state — something we know how to do — America has to do something unfamiliar and even more difficult — leverage China and the other «pivotal powers» of the world, India, Russia, the EU and Japan, into working hard to solve common threats we all face: terrorism, pandemic disease, failed states, nuclear proliferation and climate change. Terrorists want to kill us today and could. The Chinese do not want to and can't.

But for America to thrive in a world with more big powers, we also have to reinvest in American strength at home. If we don't want US companies to outsource to China and India, we need to develop a healthcare system that delivers excellent care but also controls costs. And if we want our workers to cope with transition instead of rooting for protectionism, we need to provide them not just with retraining, but with a cushion to help them bounce back, in initiatives like wage insurance and universal 401(k)s. And if we want to keep innovation happening here even as more discovery happens overseas, we need to do a better job of growing scientists. Finally, if we want China and India to respond to the specter of the climate crisis, we need to move ourselves to a low carbon economy.

PRC's deep engagement in DPRK is exactly the sort of diplomacy I fear. Joseph Nye is also perceptive enough to recognize how Taiwan fits into the relationship between the PRC and US. Are progressives still fooled by the aura of a communist government, or is it just the sheer girth of its shadow across the Pacific Ocean?

The African nation of Malawi has flipped from Taiwan to PRC, but at least its foreign minister was honest. " 'We have decided to switch from Taiwan to mainland China after careful consideration of the benefits that we will be getting from mainland China,' " Joyce Banda, minister for foreign affairs, said Monday in the capital, Lilongwe."

Taiwan's hopes of maintaining that relationship were dealt a blow when Taipei said it could not match a Chinese offer to provide it with $6 billion in aid. Malawi is one of Africa's poorest countries.

Banda, the foreign minister, said she did not know how much money China would ultimately donate to Malawi. She said projects financed by Taiwan, including a highway that extends to the border with Zambia, were discussed with China a