Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
Clinton fuelled Beijing’s militarism
Peter Zhang
I have pointed out in other articles that Clinton’s grovelling attitude toward Beijing would have the effect of strengthening the militarists at the expense of the more cautious and reform-minded members of the regime.
The result would be an aggressive revanchist foreign policy that could destabilise the region. China’s arrogant and threatening behaviour over Taiwan demonstrates that, at least for now, the militarists still appear to be in the ascendancy.
In 1999 Admiral Dennis Blair said that the US should not defend Taiwan. The Admiral’s statement made an already dangerous situation even more volatile. This incredibly stupid announcement, made on Clinton’s behalf, encouraged the regime to issue a first strike order against Taiwan.
Talk about never learning from history. On 12 January, 1950, Dean Acheson gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington. The contents were interpreted by Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang as meaning that the US did not consider South Korea within its sphere of influence and would therefore not defend it in the event of war. The result was the Korean War. Without a doubt, Stalin would not have given North Korea the OK to attack the South if he thought America would have leapt to its defence.
Forty-nine years later, using Admiral Blair as his mouthpiece, Clinton sent the same message to Beijing regarding Taiwan. The reverberations of this message throughout Asia were felt. It was not long before many were asking: “If America will not stand by its Taiwanese ally, who will it stand by?”
Not surprisingly, Beijing swiftly moved to exploit Clinton’s political ineptitude, not just by threatening Taipei with destruction but by also using it to further undermine American influence in the region.
It’s no secret that China's long-term ambition is to dominate Asia and the Pacific by destroying American influence in these regions. This policy would leave America with Hawaii as its only Pacific base with the Asian and Pacific countries, including Australia and New Zealand, firmly within Beijing’s ‘sphere of influence’. This would leave America's strategic position in a far worse state than it was in early 1942.
Thanks to Clinton’s folly the PLA seriously considered a full-scale attack on Taiwan. And yes, China’s generals have learned the lessons of the Korean War. They know that Clinton, unlike Truman, did not have the courage to militarily take on China, even though America would still have won — and still would — an outright war. And here is the vital clue to Clinton's behaviour.
The rumour was that Clinton was preparing excuses to cover his backside should Beijing have attacked Taiwan. He knew that China was keeping a very keen eye on US conventional forces, especially during his presidency. It knew the enormous extent to which Clinton had degraded those forces, even shutting down the nation’s cruise missile production facilities. Clinton compounded this stupidity by selling highly sensitive military technology to Beijing, which it immediately applied to the military.
Clinton knew that the military situation was so bad for American forces that many believed that the US could no longer mount a successful ‘conventional’ defence of Taiwan. This belief was firmly shared by some PLA generals. No wonder they were seriously rattling their sabres.
Do not assume, however, that Beijing was itching to go to war. It wasn’t and it isn’t. Why should it? Under the ‘Clinton doctrine’ of selling his country's secrets and abandoning its Asian allies, Beijing was steadily getting everything it wanted. And all for a few million dollars in donations to the Democrats.
It is true that President Bush is no Clinton, for which the rest of the world — if it had any sense — would thank God. However, Beijing knows that eventually Democrats will regain the Oval Office. Firmly believing that the Democratic Party is now thoroughly corrupt and even hostile to America’s very existence Beijing believes that it can afford to play a waiting game.
In her view, eight years of another Democratic presidency could be enough to eliminate the US as an obstacle to the regime’s political ambitions.
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 11 April 2005