In a decidedly minor international incident last week, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian suggested that it was time Taiwan had a new constitution, and, further, that perhaps this new constitution should redefine Taiwan's territory in relation to big brother China.
This announcement was widely perceived to be diplomatic code for a push towards outright independence from Beijing.
The China Daily, Beijing's English-language newspaper, carried an explanatory note in its first column about the incident: "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one and the same China..." President Chen is only ever referenced in China with quotation marks around his title: "president."
Needless to say, these two parties espouse somewhat divergent opinions on their relationship, a disagreement that has been a source of continuing tension across the Taiwan Strait for decades.
The real excitement last week, however, came with the American response to President Chen's statement, which amounted to a mid-level state department official affirming the United States' friendship with China and discouraging any Taiwanese bid for independence.
Though this diplomatic nonsense made barely a ripple on the back page of the international section in most American newspapers, the headline of last Thursday's Global Times shouted, "America slaps Taiwan in the face!" All schadenfreude aside, the leadership in Beijing was certainly pleased and relieved to know the Bush administration has stuck with their side in this most recent round of cross-Strait growling.
Although the state of international politics has undergone a few changes in the past 30 years, the US has been more or less on friendly terms with China since Nixon was president, maintaining a "One China" policy that placates Beijing by refuting Taiwan's independence.
This all very nearly changed in early 2001, when President Bush promised to "defend Taiwan with whatever it takes," against a hypothetical Chinese attack. This rash promise, a product of the same neo-conservative thought that led us into Iraq, was a dangerous and ill-considered move that could have been the first step towards a truly ghastly conflict.
With China suddenly downgraded to "strategic competitor" status, there came a loud 'ahem' from across the Pacific, and all of East Asia sat up and listened, wondering if World War III would be held on their home turf. Five months later, a pair of jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center, and China was suddenly on the back burner again.
Back to today, when the latent independence movement in Taiwan could easily gain enough momentum to pull off a very real separation from Beijing with a security guarantee from the United States. China would be more or less obliged to respond to such a declaration with an invasion, lest they suffer a colossal loss of face and prestige, as well as the legitimacy of their empire in other potential breakaway regions.
The United States would then, of course, rush the Seventh Fleet to the defense of the Taiwan Strait, and war would have begun with the potential for unparalleled human catastrophe.
Hence, the American response to President Chen's most recent rabblerousing was perfectly ambiguous: It was not total abandonment of Taiwan, but was, at the same time, a slap on the wrist for President Chen, warning him away from inviting conflict. His actions are especially dubious considering that he is currently under heavy fire for corruption charges; his rivals see the statements on independence as a way of diverting attention from his political woes.
Over the past few years, there has been a lot of excitement in the American media over the inevitable, massive impending conflict with China, and this panic-mongering often gives the impression that America ought to be knocking heads with the Chinese. I asked Donny Huang, a Chinese businessman and Beijing University professor of US-China communication, if he thought conflict between these two powers was inevitable, especially as China continues to rise in power.
Professor Huang drew his response from the I Ching, Ancient China's oldest classic of philosophy; he compared China and the Chinese people to the element of water, as described in Chapter Eight.
"Water can be as soft as a drop or as strong as a tsunami," he said. "Water can penetrate even stone, but will always flow to create balance and will last forever." Huang admitted that we did not, in fact, know what would happen, but suggested that the Chinese had a uniquely superb understanding of inter-state conflict, dating to the Warring States Period that led to the unification of China in 221 B.C.
This perspective, combined with their ability to morph and adapt to changing conditions, is the reason the Chinese civilization has lasted for 5,000 years, a span of time that makes America's 230-year history look like a flash in the pan.
Right or wrong, Huang's faith in his country is not unique among the Chinese. With 5 millennia of history and nearly 1.4 billion people, a certain level of confidence is well warranted.
China, rest assured, will not be going away any time soon.
Sam DuPont is a junior majoring in international relations. He is currently studying abroad in Beijing, China. He can be reached at Samuel.DuPont@tufts.edu.
