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.

(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).