CHINA THREATENS TAIWAN — AND THE UNITED STATES: WILL ‘A MISSILE A DAY’ KEEP THE U.S. AWAY?

(Washington, D.C.): According to Wednesday’s New
York Times
, the People’s Republic of China is poised
to conduct deadly and sustained attacks against Taiwan —
with a view at a minimum to changing Taiwanese policies,
at worst to reunite the “two Chinas” by force.
According to the Times, former Ambassador Chas
Freeman told Clinton National Security Advisor Tony Lake
on 4 January 1996 that “the People’s Liberation Army
had prepared plans for a missile attack against Taiwan
consisting of one conventional missile strike a day for
thirty days.” Mr. Freeman reportedly passed on word
from Chinese officials to the effect that
“preparations for a missile attack on Taiwan, and
the target selection to carry it out, have been completed
and await a final decision by the Politburo in
Beijing.”

Such threats represent but the latest in a series of
ominous actions by the Communist Chinese. As noted in a
Center for Security Policy Decision Brief issued
on 1 December 1995 (1)
and an op.ed. article by Center Board of Advisors member
James Hackett in the 14 January 1996 Washington Times,
these include:

  • a series of ballistic missile “tests”
    begun in July 1995 involving the launch of six
    missiles from mainland China to target ocean
    areas 85 miles north of Taiwan;
  • amphibious landing exercises on the Chinese coast
    opposite Taiwan; and
  • threats of a Chinese air cap over the Taiwan
    straits, a naval blockade of Taiwan, an invasion
    and temporary occupation of Taiwanese-controlled
    Quemoy and an invasion of Taiwan itself if Taipei
    continues to pursue international contacts.

‘Nuclear Blackmail’ of the U.S.

Those inclined to dismiss these actions as posturing
for diplomatic effect — rather than a precursor to
actual military operations — should reflect upon another
part of the message communicated by Beijing through this
trusted intermediary: The Times reported that Amb.
Freeman told Lake that “a Chinese
official…assert[ed] that China could act militarily
against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United
States because American leaders ‘care more about Los
Angeles
than they do about Taiwan.'”
Mr.
Freeman went on to characterize this as “an indirect
threat by China to use nuclear weapons against the United
States.” (Emphasis added.)

The Times article then notes that “Mr.
Freeman said he has relayed a number of warnings to
United States government officials. ‘I have quoted senior
Chinese who told me’ that China ‘would sacrifice millions
of men
and entire cities to assure the unity
of China and who opined that the United States would not
make comparable sacrifices.’ He also asserted that ‘some
in Beijing may be prepared to engage in nuclear blackmail
against the U.S. to insure that Americans do not
obstruct’ efforts by the People’s Liberation Army ‘to
defend the principles of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan

and Chinese national unity.'” (Emphasis added.)

Recent revelations about China’s practice of
murdering orphans put a fine point on these statements: Any
nation willing to engage in genocide against the most
helpless of its own people is unlikely to be more
restrained when it comes to those of the United States.

So Much for the ‘There’s No Threat of Ballistic
Missile Attack’ Line

Interestingly, the New York Times’
subsequent editorial entitled “China Threatens
Taiwan,” neglected to mention Beijing’s threat to
the United States. This presumably is because the journal
that prides itself on being the Nation’s newspaper of
record assiduously opposes the deployment of any
anti-missile defenses for the American people that might
end their present, absolute vulnerability to
“nuclear blackmail” — from China or other
quarters.

The current Chinese threat, however, makes a
mockery of the arguments employed by the New York
Times
and its friends in the Clinton Administration
who routinely seek to trivialize the threat of ballistic
missile attack against the United States in order to
justify their opposition to deploying American
anti-missile defenses.
In particular, it gives lie to
the new, pollyannish National Intelligence Estimate on
the international missile threat. In remarks on the House
floor on 24 January, Rep. Curt Weldon denounced this NIE
— which reportedly asserts that the United States will
have 15 years before it will be at risk of long-range
missile attack — as “the most politically biased
intelligence brief I have ever seen in my 10 years
here.”

In short, China’s expressed willingness to threaten
Los Angeles ought to settle the question once and for all
as to whether the United States needs a ballistic missile
defense. The United States must take prompt steps to end
its absolute vulnerability to ballistic missile attack by
beginning to deploy effective anti-missile systems at the
earliest possible moment. As Rep. Weldon — a long-time
member of the Center for Security Policy’s Board of
Advisors — put it on Wednesday: “The threat is
there, it is real — and the battle for a national
missile defense is just beginning.

What About the Taiwan Relations Act?

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 — the law of the
land
— stipulates that it is the policy of the
United States:

  • to make clear that diplomatic relations with
    Beijing “rest…upon the expectation that
    the future of Taiwan will be determined by
    peaceful means”;
  • “to consider any effort to determine the
    future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means…a
    threat to the peace and security of the Western
    Pacific area and of grave concern to the United
    States”;
  • “to maintain the capacity of the United
    States to resist any resort to force or other
    forms of coercion that would jeopardize the
    security or the social or economic system of the
    people on Taiwan.”

The Act requires, furthermore, that the President
“inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the
security or the social or economic system of the people
on Taiwan and any danger to the United States arising
therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine
in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate
action by the United States in response to any such
danger.”
These provisions — which as
statutes
must take precedence over three, far less
robust joint communiques signed by Washington and Beijing
(in 1972, 1979 and 1982) — should be implemented
immediately.

Even by their own terms, the commitments made by
China in the last two of these communiques have been
breached by Beijing’s recent, threatening behavior toward
Taiwan. For example, in the August 1982 “Joint
Communique on United States Arms Sales to Taiwan,”
the U.S. pledged not to deliver arms that “in
quantitative and qualitative terms” exceed “the
level of those supplied” in the preceding decade. It
also promised to “reduce gradually its sale of arms
to Taiwan.” These commitments were, however,
predicated on the U.S. expectation that China will
maintain a “consistent position regarding the
thorough [i.e., peaceful] settlement of this issue.”

Then, in the January 1979 “Joint Communique on
the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the
United States of America and the People’s Republic of
China,” China agreed that “neither [nation]
should seek hegemony in the Asia pacific region.”
(What is more, in issuing this communique, President
Carter said “I have paid special attention to
ensuring that normalization of relations between our
country and the People’s Republic will not jeopardize the
well-being of the people of Taiwan.”)

Instead of observing the law, the Clinton
Administration has kow-towed to Beijing, adopting what it
calls a policy of “strategic ambiguity.” As
Senator Larry Pressler observed in a speech on the Senate
floor on 24 January following the New York Times’
revelations of Chinese threats to Taiwan and the
United States:

“The administration claims to be advancing a
policy of deliberate ambiguity. For example, high
level administration officials recently have been
asked if the United States would come to Taiwan’s
defense in the event of an attack from the PRC. Their
responses were consistently and ominously
vague.”

“The administration seems to believe that
this ambiguity will be enough to deter Beijing.
Today’s report indicates that the exact opposite has
occurred. I believe this policy of strategic
ambiguity is wrong and has failed. It is not just
dangerous for the people of Taiwan, it is potentially
destabilizing for the entire East Asia region. It is
an approach that clearly advances the PRC’s interests
and not our own.

“The administration’s ambiguity policy has
fueled the belief within the PRC that the United
States will look the other way if PRC missiles are
launched. Because of our ambiguity, the PRC believes
that it can achieve its policy goals at the very
least through intimidation and military
posturing….It sends a signal of weakness. It
fosters a belief that we can be pushed around by the
PRC.”

Action Items

Pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act, the present
“threat to the security of Taiwan and any danger to
the interests of the United States arising
therefrom” oblige President Clinton to “inform
the Congress” and begin jointly determining
“appropriate action[s] by the United States in
response to any such danger.”
The following are
among the “appropriate actions” that are now in
order with respect to Taiwan:

  • Issue a presidential statement making clear
    the United States’ determination to defend Taiwan
    against any acts of Chinese aggression.
    This
    would replace the policy of “strategic
    ambiguity” (a relative of the odious and
    failed Kissingerian policy of “constructive
    ambiguity”) that has, according to the New
    York Times
    , prompted the Pentagon to aver
    that “the decision [to defend Taiwan] would
    depend on the timing, pretext and nature of
    Chinese aggression.”
  • Deploy elements of the Seventh Fleet to the
    Taiwan Straits so as to institute a physical
    barrier to Chinese aggression and to signal
    unmistakably American resolve and capability to
    end Beijing’s campaign of intimidation against
    Taiwan.
    Every effort should be made to
    ensure that the AEGIS systems that would play a
    part in any such deployment are made capable at
    the earliest possible moment of intercepting
    ballistic missiles — whether aimed at Taiwan or
    the United States.
  • Disavow the Taiwan Arms Sales Communique so as
    to allow whatever quantity and quality of weapons
    are required to allow Taiwan to defend itself
    against an undeniably burgeoning Chinese military
    threat.
    An important step in this direction
    has been taken by the Congress in action this
    year on the State Department authorization bill
    which contains identical language in the House
    and Senate which would amend the TRA to supersede
    the Communique’s restrictions on arms sales to
    Taiwan.
  • Stop selling China highly sensitive dual-use
    technology that is being exploited by the
    People’s Liberation Army enabling it to make
    quantum leaps in Beijing’s lethal
    power-projection capability.
    For example, a
    series of alarming articles published over the
    past few weeks in the respected Far East
    Economic Review
    assert that Secretary of
    Defense William Perry has been personally
    involved in facilitating such tech transfers —
    under the rubric of “defense
    conversion” and, in at least some cases, to
    the financial benefit of former business partners
    and associates in the U.S. and China.
  • Respond to the provocative expulsion of a U.S.
    Air Force attaché by immediately ejecting a
    Chinese counterpart.
    American Lt. Col.
    Bradley Gerdes (USAF) was accused of
    photographing a secret Chinese base. He was
    interrogated without food for 19 hours; the
    United States was not notified of his detention
    for 24 hours. This outrageous action is
    symptomatic of the contempt with which Beijing
    views the United States today.

The Bottom Line

If the Clinton Administration fails to move
immediately on the foregoing action items, Congress must
hold urgent hearings on the matter — and assert its will
by legislative action if necessary.

– 30 –

(1) See Escalating Threats
to the Republic of China Must Be Met Head-On by the
United States
(No.
95-D 99
, 1 December 1995).

Center for Security Policy

Please Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *