OP-ED: "Let Taiwan Join the U.N.: China's ire is not a good cause for concern," by Bob Dole, Wall Street Journal, 17 September 2007, p. A16.
Dole makes a decent case here but eschews exploring the real issue for the Chinese: giving Taiwan membership would, in Beijing's eyes, rule out the potential for peaceful integration down the road. It would also make the UN responsible for Taiwan's defense in the event of hostilities between the island and mainland in the future.
The UN is smart to avoid that responsibility.
The reality is more than just the fact that the UN gave China's Taiwan's seat in 1971. The reality is that Taiwan held China's seat from the end of WWII to 1971, and on that basis claimed to be the sole representative of the nation known as China. We supported that claim, and then we, along with the UN, transferred that claim to the PRC.
In both cases (pre-71 and post-71) the logic has been the same: There is one seat for China.
Now, Taiwan wants to make the case for a second seat, and naturally, China takes that as an affront to its perceived territorial integrity. The equivalent would be something like DC asking for UN membership because it's denied statehood.
Saying, as Dole does, that the U.S. and the West do not support Taiwan out of fear of China's wrath is correct, but it's not much of a point. There are numerous international issues that other countries around this planet do not adequately address out of fear of America's wrath. Some are quite reasonable, others are not.
The larger issue of peaceful relations between the U.S. and China outweighs Taiwan's desire here. We made our call on this issue back in 1949, and then reversed in 1971, but it's our bed to lie in at this point, because we've stuck with the same position throughout: there is but one China.
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
It seems like this debate is a proxy for a larger one on America basing its security in the western Pacific on an Japan-Australia-India alliance -- whether the gains one gets by tying together the region's democracies are overshadowed by the harm it does to Sino-American ties.
Posted by dan tdaxp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 17, 2007 12:27 PM
Very much the discussion we had in Australia earlier this month. In fact, I spoke on a panel that was exactly on this question.
The security experts from the Australian gov are comfortable with the logic of containing China, but the non-security players are clearly not comfortable, realizing what a huge boon China has become for Australia's commodity exports--and that's even before the Chinese tourists start showing up in droves.
I found the entire topic amazingly back-to-the-future in tone. In short, that horse is already out of the barn.
Getting sucked back into the 3GW mindset on Asia does not constitute an adequate response to a 4GW-dominated SWA.
Posted by Tom Barnett | September 17, 2007 3:13 PM