A U.S. defense official has told a recent meeting of the House armed services committee that China is changing the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.Richard Lawless, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia and the Pacific, was the second the second American government official to accuse China of violating the status quo by increasing the deployment of missiles targeting Taiwan.Lawless’ predecessor Peter Rodman did so in March last year.
What actually is the status quo?
It’s the one as the United States defines it, according to Foggy Bottom.How, then, has Washington defined it?No one will give a definite answer.State Department spokesmen can only say the status quo means no use of force or threat to use force by China against Taiwan, while the latter has to exercise prudence in managing all aspects of cross-Strait relations.Lawless and Rodman, however, are convinced that China’s ever-growing missile arsenal along its coast is nothing but a threat to use force against Taiwan.
Though they may differ on how to define the status quo, the American officials are agreed that the United States would never make clear what action it would take against a violation.Well, it’s called strategic ambiguity.Washington knows the status quo is defined differently in Beijing and Taipei, and does not want to tell either of them how it would react when what it considers a change occurs.The United States opposes any unilateral change in the status quo as it defines it, but so far has used that phrase only to describe moves taken by Taipei that are regarded as “provocative.”
Cruise missiles alone, of course, may not be deemed to pose a serious enough threat to the security of Taiwan.Beijing certainly thinks its missile buildup is so perceived in Washington.That’s why China has increased the deployment from 350 missiles in 2003 to close to 1,000 now.Leaders in Beijing also believe threatening words are no serious threat to resort to the use of force of arms against Taiwan.As a result, they had an anti-secession law passed in March last year, codifying a prompt invasion of Taiwan if and when independence is declared on the island.There has been little or no public comment from the United States.
That’s unfair.Uncle Sam has to be fair, if he wants to be an arbiter.He must warn President Chen Shui-bian against writing a “timely, apt and viable” constitution for Taiwan as a move to unilaterally change the status quo and urge the equally provocative People’s Republic of China to remove the missiles from its southeast coast.President Hu Jintao of China may comply, because the missiles, which are mobile, can be removed and then redeployed in no time, if he so wishes.
Wouldn’t Uncle Sam try to be a fair referee in the ball game played between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait?
（本文刊載於96.06.18 China Post第4版，本文代表作者個人意見）
