|
Weapons Sales to Taiwan
With Jim Doran
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senior Staff Member for East Asia
Tuesday, April 24, 2001; 4 p.m. EDT
Jim Doran, senior majority staff member for East Asia on Sen. Jesse Helms's (R-N.C.) Foreign Relations Committee, will be online to discuss the U.S. decision on weapons sales to Taiwan, the fallout from the U.S. spy plane on Hainan Island, and Sino-U.S. relations.
White House officials said that the Bush administration planned to sell Taiwan a variety of arms including four Kidd-class destroyers, a dozen anti-submarine planes, and diesel-powered submarines.
Doran, a nine-year veteran of Capitol Hill, has worked on the Foreign Relations committee for the past three years. He will take your questions on the arms sale to Taiwan, the debate in Congress and other issues related to U.S.-Taiwan and U.S.-Sino relations.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Washington, D.C.:
Do recent cross-straight tensions bear any similarity to the rocky Sino-Tibetan relationship?
If so, in what capacity?
If not, then why not?
Jim Doran: Yes, they are similar in that both a democratic, sovereign Taiwan and a culturally autonomous Tibet pose a mortal threat to the ruling Communist regime in Beijing. This is precisely why Beijing is cracking down in Tibet, refusing any real dialogue with the Dalai Lama and simultaneously building up its military with the obvious purpose of intimidating Taiwan. They know they have to bring both of these "splitists" under control if they are to survive as a regime. And that is precisely why America and the free world should not allow that to happen.
Alexandria, Va.:
How likely is it that the Germans or Dutch (or other nations) will allow the U.S. to purchase designs to build the diesel-electric subs for Taiwan? If not, are you aware of any contingency plans in case this falls through?
Jim Doran: There is a wire story out right now that says the Germans are not interested. As you may know, the Chinese have come down hard on the Dutch and the French in the past for selling arms, including 2 Dutch subs in the early 80s, to Taiwan. You can bet they have already put a strong arm on both the Germans and the Dutch on this issue.
I am not aware of any contingency plans, but there is absolutely a need for the Bush administration to bring as much pressure as possible to bear on the Dutch or the Germans to help us out with this. Submarines are perhaps the single most important item Taiwan requested this year. Their presence will seriously hinder any PRC planning and operations against Taiwan because they are survivable. I view getting subs to Taiwan as a major national security priority and I trust the administration will as well.
Boston, Mass.:
Why does the U.S. support an unelected dictatorship in China that is hostile to Taiwan and other countries in the region? The argument that we have to do it to let American businesses operate in such a large market seems pretty thin, considering very few American businesses have shown a profit there, and most are subject to arbitrary punishment if US-Chinese relations turn sour.
Jim Doran: I concur with your opinion on US business difficulties in China. I cannot tell you how many business people come through my office complaining of unfair treatment by the Chinese government -- broken promises, contracts reneged upon, etc. They all want congressional help in getting the situation straightened out. Our exports to China are paltry -- less than 2% of all US exports and about 50% less than we sell to Taiwan, with 1/50 of China's population.
Nonetheless, our desire to business in and with China has enormously impacted our thinking toward that country. I agree with former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, who recently wrote that our over-investment in the Chinese economy has seriously compromised our ability to conduct foreign policy in East Asia.
This needs to change, and I hope it will under the new administration.
Rockville, Md.:
If supporting a democracy and human right is our goal, shouldn't we support a decision made by Taiwanese, let it be independence or unification (i.e., self-determination)?
Jim Doran: I certainly agree with the concept of self-determination. After all, we declared independence one day, didn't we?
Declaring independence would be suicidal for Taiwan, so I don't think we ought to encourage it. But frankly, I don't think Taiwan will ever do it as long as China has missiles pointed at them. The issue has been built up into a straw man.
More and more people seem to be saying that we should move away from strategic ambiguity by delcaring that we will defend Taiwan militarily, but not if they declare independence.
This would be a mistake, for the reasons cited above and also because it would not slake the thirst of the Communists, only whet their appetite. Beijing will continue to probe for ways to intimidate and coerce Taiwan until Taiwan surrenders politically.
Boston, Mass.:
Is MFN status going to be harder to sell to the American people and the Congress this year in light of this past crisis?
Jim Doran: I predict MFN will pass again, per usual.
Unfortunately, the country is not yet ready to accept the fact that we cannot compartmentalize trade from other issues. In fact, trade is the heart of the matter. We are keeping a nasty regime alive and subsidizign its military buildup with our trade deficits.
Washington, D.C.:
Notwithstading the package of arms available for Taiwan this year, what other measures can the U.S. and Taiwan take to bolster the island's defenses?
Jim Doran: There is much to be done. For instance, there are no communications systems between the US and Taiwan militaies. This will result in utter chaos should we end up fighting together.
We have no operational contact with Taiwan's military due to restrictions placed on the relationship under the Carter administration. We need to invite Taiwan to at least observe US military exercises (if not acutally condcuting exercises)so that Taiwan's isolated military can get up to speed in modern military methods, doctrine, planning, etc. This is crucial because Taiwan will always be outnumbered by the PRC military.
We can also remove a host of petty and humiliating restrictions that we place on Taiwan, such as barring them from wearing their uniforms when in the US for weapons training.
I have recently written a report (which should be available on the Foreign Relations Committee website, or is available by contacting the committee) that makes 15 recommendations for improving our defense relationship with Taiwan.
Montpelier, Md.:
I already asked this in an earlier discussion, but am interested in YOUR opinion.
If the US can't convince its European "allies" to sell subs or designs either directly to Taiwan or indirectly through the US, why not sell some of our older Los Angeles class subs to Taiwan at a bargain price? I believe the US Navy is slowly phasing out the LA class.
Jim Doran: I would need to talk to the Navy about the status of our LA subs and the feasibility of this. But I agree that if the Europeans won't go along, we absolutely must find a way to do this.
There is strategic value in trying to get European involvement however. The more countries that we can induce to take Taiwan's security seriously, the better.
Cupertino, Calif.:
Is there a plan in the Senate to monitor and manage the missiles and nuclear weapons build up in China? Will this plan be shared with our Pacific allies like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore?
Jim Doran: This is really an executive branch responsibility. The DOD does provide occasional reports to Congress on these issues. I imagine some of the informations is shared with our allies, but you will need to check with the Pentagon.
We of course take an active interest in this issue though in the Senate. I personally believe that we need to devote more intelligence assets to monitoring and analyzing the Chinese military.
Washington, D.C.:
Can you disclose how much money Sen. Helms's library in N.C. has received from Taiwan sources?
Jim Doran: I don't know. It could be zero for all I know.
Senator Helms supports Taiwan because it is a democracy and is strategically important to the United States. If Taiwan falls to the Communists, it will obviously be a strategic, diplomatic and moral catastrophe for the US. That is the motivation for everything Senator Helms and his staff do on this issue.
Boston, Mass.:
US policy aims to enable Taiwan to defend itself in case of a PRC attack. What policy should the U.S. take in relation to Taiwan-held islands in the South China sea (nansha dao), which are often claimed by multiple parties, including China and other countries in the region? How should the U.S. respond if the PRC increases its aggressive moves against those territories?
Jim Doran: Great question. The PRC claims all of the South China Sea, including the Spratlys. Their maps show them as Chinese territory. The Chinese covet them beacuse of their strategic locations (through these sea lanes is carried a huge percentage of world trade and I believe 70% of Japan's energy supplies). This has much to do with the recent spy plane incident.
We must oppose unilateral PRC claims on the Spratlys, regardless on the current occupant. I believe we made a big mistake in not opposing the 1995 Chinese grab of Mischief Reef off the coast of the Philippines. They clearly believe they can act with impunity there and that increases the chance of miscalculation and war.
Rockville, Md.:
To follow up on my previous question (i.e., self-determination for Taiwanese), why do we often iterate that we support an "eventual unification?" Aren't we predetermining the outcome for the Taiwanese?
Jim Doran: Some people might say that but that is not official policy. Our policy supports "peaceful resolution."
It would be a mistake to support "unification" for 2 reasons. For starters, most Taiwanese do not support that, at least while China is Communist. Secondly, it would play into Beijing's hands by buttressing there incessant "One China" claims.
That said, if a majority of Taiwaese, absent any coercion, do eventually support unification, that is something we should and will support.
McLean, Va.:
How strong is the effort to turn China into the Cold War bad guy, replacing Russia as the reason for increased military and military related budgets?
Jim Doran: Pretty weak, considering that our defense budget was cut for nearly 15 straight years and has only recently begun to increase by relatively small amounts.
Believe me, talk of China as an "enemy" has been all but prohibited in the Pentagon for the past decade.
Gaithersburg, Md.:
What action do you think China will undertake in response to this arm package?
Jim Doran: It's difficult to say right now. The submarine sale appears to be the only real "red line" that was crossed and that may mitigate their response.
They could cancel some planned visits, recall their ambassador, cease military-military coopertion, sell more arms and technology to fellow rogue regimes, etc.
Folks from my school of thought would not worry to much about these types of measure. The Chinese are already proliferating on a widespread basis, contrary to the claims of the Clinton administration to Congress. And the visits and mil-mil exchanges have borne little fruit anyway, as exhibited by China's outrageous and adversarial behavior during the spy plane hostage situation.
Most people don't expect a truly dangerous Chinese reaction, such as siezing one of Taiwan's islands, though this is something our intelligence community has to be monitoring.
Washington, D.C.:
Sir,
Recently Japan refused former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui's request for a travel visa to visit the Japan for a heart operation with his personal doctor. Is this a sign that Japan is intimidated by the PRC? Thank you.
Jim Doran: They didn't refuse, he is there now.
However, the Japanese are in a difficult position vis-a-vis China. I am sure serious people in their government are well aware that China is a threat to their region, but China is close by and as you know, Japan only has a limited self-defense force.
This is why the Japanese appear so cautious and this is why US leadership in the region is so critical.
Dallas,Tex.s:
It appears that the Current Administration
is somewhat divided between confrontation
and engagement with China with hawks slightly
out weighing the China doves (Bush Sr. and
Kissinger, etc.). How do you see this
playing out and if a war does breakout
on the communist front, how do you think
the Clinton administration has damaged
our ability to respond?
Jim Doran: The Republican Party is deeply divided over how to deal with China and that is probably reflected in the Bush administration.
It is too early to tell how it will play out. Many people are waiting to see how the administration responds or retaliates for China's abusive behavior during the EP-3 hostage situation. This will provide some clues as to who has the upper hand.
I will take this opportunity to respond to criticism of Sen. Helms' treatment of the Bush administration's handling of the spy plane affair: During a crisis, there is always a general attitude of deference to the President by Congress. This is healthy and wise. You cannot have 535 Secretaries of State during a crisis.
Also, it was difficult, even for hard-liners such as Sen. Helms and myself, to see what else the administration could have done as long as we had hostages in China. Sending in the Delta Force was appealing, but did not seem realistic.
I cannot speak to Senator Helms' exact views on what should be done now that the hostages are out, but you can bet your bottom dollar that most conservatives are ready and willing to lower the boom on the Communist Chinese now that it's over.
We not only need to retaliate for the specific incident, but also need to fundamentally re-examine the entire set of assumptions on which our China policy has rested for 30 years. The policy has not fostered political reform in China, has not reduced Beijing's intimidation of Taipei, has not improved the human rights situation and above all, has not fostered a friendlier attitude toward the US on the part of the Chinese government.
Washington, D.C.:
What would your (and that of your boss) response be if instead of President Bush selling arms it had been President Clinton?
Aren't you all being very soft because it is "your boy" in the White House? Aren't you opening yourself up to the whole hypocrite argument?
Jim Doran: The Clinton adminstration would never have approved submarines for Taiwan. Just 2 years ago, Clinton adminstration officials told me that the answer on subs was not just no, but "hell no." The Bush team is to be commended for having the courage to cross this "red line" of Beijing.
Senator Helms made clear in his supportive statement that he still believes President Bush should approve the Aegis destroyer request. He also stated that there is still work to be done in the critical and neglected field of communications and operational training with Taiwan's military.
My personal opinion is that this was a good package, but could have been better. There were several other items (HARM missiles, JDAM precision bombs and Harpoon missile upgrades) that were rejected. I am not sure of the administration's reasoning on these items, but I believe they are critical to Taiwan's ability to maintain air superiority and, if necessary, suppress the PRC's ballistic missile terror weapons before they are launched.
These items should be approved in the nearest possible future. Which leads me to one final point: this year, we have seen more than ever what a ridiculous process we have for Taiwan defense sales. It is unique and was set up, I believe, by the Carter administration. Every other nation simply sends a letter making a request whenever they see fit. We in turn, respond after appropriate review.
The Taiwan process invites a circus atmosphere and gives Beijing too much of a target on which to concentrate its opposition.
It would be perfect timing if the Bush adminstration were to approve some of the sales that have been rejected today in, say, 6 months while announcing that the annual Taiwan defense sale process has been scrapped.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
