Chen Bingde wasn’t lying, entirely
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde (陳炳德), who visited Washington last week, caused a bit of a stir when he claimed that China only had a garrison deployment across from Taiwan and did not have operational deployments, much less missiles, stationed there.
While those comments were immediately ridiculed by Taiwanese authorities and the US Department of Defense, the fact of the matter is that Chen wasn’t lying outright — the veracity of his claim depends on how one defines “across from Taiwan.”
One thing that history should have taught us about negotiating with China is that it’s all about the context. If what Chen meant by “across from Taiwan” was China’s Fujian Province, then technically he was telling the truth, as the Second Artillery — the unit responsible for the bulk of China’s missile arsenal — has maintained a garrison in Fujian for more than a decade and it is not altogether impossible that missiles are not permanently deployed there.
As is often the case, however, the pith of the matter lies in what Chinese officials did not say. In the present case, what Chen omitted is that elsewhere in China, the missile threat against Taiwan continues to expand and is doing so despite ostensibly warmer relations between Taipei and Beijing. As the range, precision and potential destructiveness of the PLA missile arsenal grows, “across from Taiwan” loses all meaning, at least up to the point where the missiles are no longer within range.
This may sound trivial, but this would not be so if Beijing were to offer to dismantle its missiles targeting Taiwan — as the US and Taipei have long demanded — whereupon specificity, rather than vagueness, will be key. If, at some point, Beijing were to take “seriously” requests that it dismantle or pull back its missiles, lack of specificity could allow it to get away with murder (“If the missiles don’t exist, how can we dismantle them?” China could rightly ask).
The Second Artillery’s Base 52, which is headquartered “across from Taiwan” in Huangshan, Anhui Province, has at least six short-range missile brigades in Fujian, Jiangxi, Zhejiang and Guangdong provinces, all intended for a Taiwan contingency. Several of the delivery systems are road mobile, while other missiles and their components can be distributed to any of the six brigades throughout Southeast China and launched from there.
The 70-year-old Chen wasn’t showing signs of senility when he made those comments in Washington, nor did he think that US officials, who have substantial imagery intelligence proving the contrary, were fools. Rather, he was setting the scene for what could eventually become the parameters for negotiations on Taiwan. While we can already expect Beijing to observe commitments in the breach, it is also known that it will exploit to the fullest whatever room to maneuver it is given as a result of the other side’s failure to request specifics. This is China’s negotiating style, as any British official who handled talks in the 1980s ahead of Hong Kong’s retrocession in 1997 would tell us.
Chinese officials aren’t being vague out of carelessness or some ideological proclivity for imprecision; they know exactly what they are doing and they thrive on our failure to see their game, or when we approach negotiations with a sense of cultural superiority.
Salary slip highlights pay divide
On May 12, Central Personnel Administration Minister Wu Tai-cheng (吳泰成) made a slip of the tongue during a legislative question-and-answer session when he said that military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers earn low to mid-level incomes. The claim has caused much public controversy, and Wu has been criticized for not understanding the public’s hardships and trying to portray the government’s vote-buying policy of raising the salaries of military personnel, civil servants and school teachers by 3 percent in a better light.
In response to the criticism, Wu quickly issued a statement saying that his comments were rash and that he had oversimplified the issue. He also apologized if his comments had been the cause of any misunderstanding.
Whether oversimplified or just a slip of the tongue, Wu’s claim reflects the general attitude of government officials. The income, employment benefits and retirement pension received by military personnel, civil servants and school teachers are in fact better than those of salaried employees.
However, just like President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), most officials have risen through the ranks of the civil service. They are isolated and out of touch with the world around them, thinking they are a disadvantaged group and that if the government doesn’t give them special treatment, they are not showed the appreciation due to them for their contributions to the nation. Taiwan’s current economic data may appear superficially outstanding, but most workers have not shared in the results. Apart from wanting to attract votes in next year’s elections, another reason for the 3 percent raise for government employees is the misconception that military personnel, civil servants and school teachers belong to the lower and middle classes.
There is in fact a very simple number that will tell us if these groups really belong to the lower and middle income levels. According to Wu, the average monthly salary of civil servants is about NT$60,000. However, data from the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics tells us that anyone with a monthly salary of NT$60,000 belongs to the upper income levels, because almost half of Taiwan’s almost 8 million salaried employees — including civil servants — earn less than NT$30,000 per month, and less than 10 percent of them earn more than NT$60,000 per month.
In addition, the average monthly pay for salaried employees, excluding civil servants, was NT$36,000 last year, far less than the NT$60,000 average earned by civil servants.
Among them, 1.038 million people, or 12.9 percent, earned less than NT$20,000 per month and 3.597 million people, 44.6 percent, earned less than NT$30,000. Only 716,000 people, 8.9 percent, earned more than NT$60,000 per month. In other words, it is those among Taiwan’s salaried employees who earn less than NT$30,000 per month who earn a low or mid-level income. Those making NT$60,000 or more per month belong to the top 10 percent, the upper level of Taiwan’s salary earners.
We are not criticizing Wu for highlighting the income gap between military personnel, civil servants and school teachers on the one hand and the general public on the other, nor are we trying to stir up hatred between different groups. Government employee salaries and benefits are a result both of historical factors and long-term policy, and not an intentional attempt to form a privileged class superior to a majority of the public. Our point is that most government officials are unaware of the public’s hardships, living as they do in their own little world, making their decisions in their ivory towers, and that they do not know that most salaried employees will never earn the NT$60,000 government employees earn every month.
Taiwan has to stand up to China’s black swan
Ever since coming into office, Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has followed a policy of rapprochement with China. His government inked the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) alongside 15 other agreements and Ma has taken great pride in the warming of cross-strait relations. Other nations, including the US, have also been seen to applaud this approach, as — on the surface — it reduces tensions in the Taiwan Strait.
So far, the perception of China is that it is comparable to the white swan from the recent movie Black Swan, dancing gracefully and elegantly in the ballet of the international political theater.
However, the black swan has already started to make the occasional appearance, indicating perhaps that the image of the white swan is fleeting. Beijing can only fake its white swan appearance briefly.
In spite of the cross-strait rapprochement, Beijing has continued its breakneck military buildup across the Taiwan Strait. Military spending in the People’s Republic of China will rise 12.6 percent this year, and — despite pronouncements to the contrary from People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Chief of Staff General Chen Bingde (陳炳德) during his recent visit to Washington, Beijing continues to aim at least 1,600 ballistic missiles at Taiwan.
China also continues to restrict Taiwan’s international space. The great “breakthrough” claimed by the Ma administration in 2009, when it was “allowed” to be an observer at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the annual get-together of the WHO was revealed to be an empty position when an internal WHO memo showed explicit instructions that Taiwan be referred to as a “province of China.”
The memo, dated Sept. 14, 2010, also indicated that procedures used by the WHO to facilitate relations with Taiwan were subject to Chinese approval. The memo further stated that Taiwan, “as a province of China, cannot be party to the IHR [International Health Regulations].”
This memo showed a total disregard for Taiwan’s sovereignty and status as a free and democratic nation, providing instead an example of international kowtowing to the authoritarian regime in Beijing.
The WHO added insult to injury when it refused access to the WHA’s Geneva meeting to the WHO Membership for Taiwan Alliance, a coalition of Taiwanese civic groups that support Taiwan’s membership in the international organization.
Alliance members were previously always allowed to observe WHA proceedings. Suddenly, new “rules” were produced this year banning entry to anyone with a passport from Taiwan.
The Ma administration made a feeble attempt to respond to the leaked memo. On May 14, Department of Health Minister Chiu Wen-ta (邱文達) attended the WHA meeting and lodged a “strong protest” in a letter to the WHO.
Ironically, this “protest” letter itself became quite controversial when it was discovered that phrases concerning Taiwan’s sovereignty, which appeared in the Chinese----language version and which were clearly for domestic consumption, disappeared in the English version. Terms referring to “the nation” or “our country” in the Chinese text were mysteriously translated into English as “my,” “I” and “our.”
Both in Taiwan and internationally, we need to work harder to ensure the white swans gain the upper hand.
Jean Wu is a graduate in diplomacy and international relations from Seton Hall University in New Jersey. She works at the Formosan Association for Public Affairs in Washington.
0 comments:
Post a Comment