The roar behind Sino-US row, By Ameen Izzadeen

In 1987, US President Ronald Reagan pointing at the Berlin Wall during a visit to West Germany, bluntly said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Two years after this famous Reagan remark, the wall that divided Germany for 28 years collapsed, leading to the reunification of Germany. In 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev helplessly watched the Soviet Union disintegrate into 15 independent states. The fall of the communist giant buried the cold-war-ridden bipolar world order that had made the countries of the post-World War II world to either ally with one of the two superpowers or remain neutral, preferably as members of the non-aligned movement.

For nearly two decades after the unfortunate demise of the cold war, the United States has remained the undisputed sole superpower in a unipolar world order. Puffed with power, the US waived the rules to rule the world. In the process, it earned the wrath of the world. Some even wished the Soviet Union or a similar power had been there to check US arrogance.

The US, at last, has met its match. Of course, the US has had a taste of China’s power before. During the Korean War in the 1950s, China supported North Korean troops who fought US troops. Then during the last days of the cold war, the US and the West confronted China when pro-democracy demonstrations in the Tiananmen Square in 1989 shook the Communist Party leadership. Unfazed, China crushed the riots by using disproportionate force. A highly embarrassed US imposed sham sanctions only to be lifted a few years later, for the lure of cheap Chinese goods was too strong to resist.

Ever since, no US president has had the temerity to make a Reagan-style remark against China. Yes, China is today a great power and its economic and military power is growing.

Soon, we may even see a new bipolar world where political and military rivalry will exist between two superpowers beneath a veneer of a sham friendship necessitated by symbiotic trade relations.

A realignment of new alliances is taking place with developing countries, especially countries which violate human rights, suppress media freedom or have engaged with the US in political or ideological conflicts taking China as their patron or protector.

China has come to the rescue of Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran and Myanmar at the United Nations Security Council by vetoing resolutions introduced by the US or its Western allies. Of course, China helps these countries not because it loves them but because it does not want to give legitimacy to an international trend which may eventually come home to roost, especially in view of its own human rights record in dealing with separatist tendencies in Tibet and Xinjiang and dissent elsewhere in the country.

Notwithstanding its own pathetic human rights record in occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, the angry West chides China saying it is unable to promote democracy and human rights in developing nations or stop Iran’s nuclear programme because of Beijing’s non-cooperation.

Last year, the United States resorted to bogeyman tactics to persuade Beijing to back UN sanctions on Iran, the third largest supplier of oil to China. The US sent two emissaries to energy-dependent China with a message that the US would be able to stop an imminent Israeli attack on Iran — an attack that could destabilize the region and send the world oil prices sky high — only if China backed US moves to impose sanctions on Iran.

Two weeks ago, too, the US sent a similar message to China over new Iran sanctions. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned China that it risked diplomatic isolation and disruption to its energy supplies unless it helped keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

But this time around, China flexed its muscle because it was furious that the US showed scant regard for its sensitivity over Taiwan.

China certainly saw the US decision to sell US$ 6.4 billion worth of advanced military weapons and equipment to Taiwan as a severe blow to Sino-US relations. The US provocation was not confined to the arms deal alone. Days before the announcement of the US arms deal, Secretary Clinton accused China of resorting to cyberattacks on internet search giant Google to prevent free expression. The war of words that broke out over this accusation intensified when Clinton fired a second salvo urging China to show some concern for the human rights situation in Tibet. This was followed by another blow: US president Barack Obama’s decision to meet Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama. The White House is adamant that the meeting with the Dalai Lama will go ahead despite Chinese protests.

When Washington decided to sell Patriot missiles, Black Hawk helicopters, mine-hunting ships and other weaponry to Taiwan, it was natural for Beijing to feel that these weapons were meant to counter the threat from China. For, Taiwan has no other foe in the region.

Furious, China warned that it would suspend military and security contacts with the US and impose sanctions on US firms involved in the Taiwan weapons deal.

Both the US and Taiwan responded by saying that the weapons were needed to maintain security and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

“It will let Taiwan feel more confident and secure so we can have more interactions with China,” Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou said.

But Chinese officials rejected this argument, saying the arms deal would only encourage the arrogance of Taiwan independence forces and hinder the peaceful development of cross-strait ties.

They warned that the growing row would endanger Sino-US cooperation on major international issues such as the climate deal, the North Korean talks and the Iranian nuclear dispute.

Theoretically speaking, the Taiwan dispute is potent with the danger of a major war between the United States and China. The US is bound by a defence agreement to guarantee Taiwan’s security in the event of an attack.

China claims sovereignty over Taiwan which emerged as a separate entity after the defeated nationalist government leaders fled to the island territory in the face of the victory of Mao Zedong’s Communist revolutionaries.

Taiwan, to all intents and purposes, remains a de facto independent state. China has been calling for the reunification of the island with the mainland but it has avoided the use of force to achieve this goal. The use of force may provoke some sort of US military involvement. But given China’s present military might and the growing dependence of the US on Beijing for its financial and economic stability, it is unlikely that Washington would honour its commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to protect Taiwan.

The body politic of Taiwan is divided down the middle with some favouring improved relations with China or the implementation of a one-country-two systems formula — the formula with which Beijing governs Hong Kong and Macau. Others insist that Taiwan should declare formal independence and seek international recognition.

The division is underscored also at Taiwanese elections which have been producing presidents who are either pro-China or anti-China.

Sino-US relations apparently assume different shapes at two different planes. When it comes to economy and finance, the relations are cordial and warm; but when it comes to politics, mutual suspicion and rivalry govern their relations.

The United States is certainly uneasy over the growth of China’s military power. Worried about China’s presence at Asia’s strategic ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bangladesh and even the Maldives, the US promotes India as a check against the red giant. The US is also incensed with China over Chinese-made weapons, including the latest armour-penetrating rockets, reaching rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq.

China, on the other hand, frustrates US moves aimed at shaping up a world according to Washington. China, together with its strategic partner Russia, has succeeded, to a great extent, in evicting the US military from Central Asia. When the US sought observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which is primarily a defence grouping bringing together China, Russia and five Central Asian countries, both Beijing and Moscow opposed. Sri Lanka, which has close relations with both China and Russia, was last year admitted to the SCO as a dialogue partner.

In its latest white paper on national defence, China notes that the US has increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia-Pacific region, further consolidating its military alliances and enhancing its military capabilities.

The defence paper says China is still confronted by long-term, complicated, and diverse security threats and challenges. It however gives an assurance that it will never seek hegemony. This is not only a swipe at the US but also a roar in the new Chinese Year of the Tiger that begins on Sunday.