And all the sons of Congressmen!

"As democracy is perfected, the office of  president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken

Recommended reading

We gather information, on a daily basis, from many websites. There are a number of publications that are well worth viewing for their intelligent reporting of national and international news. All of those sources, listed below, are daily newspapers with the exception of the Asia Times. The latter is a very well written site with in-depth articles that are worth reading.

The New York Times:  www.nytimes.com
The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com
The Christian Science Monitor: www.csmonitor.com
The Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk
Seattle Post-Intelligencer:  www.seattlepi.nwsource.com
Asia Times www.atimes.com

Note: Very little of the information in this edition of TBR news has come from the mainline American media. It is just not there. Most of it has come from foreign sources and the Internet. Most of our sources can be seen on the main page.

The Voice of the White House

March 12, 2005: “The hot topic here today, and probably for a week or so, isn’t the Gannon scandal which has more or less died away. Gannon has been quiet and no one here in the White House even remembers who he was. Officially.

The concern here is the PRC. They have been annoyed with Bush for his clumsy and arrogant behavior towards not only them but just about everyone else. Bush is pig-headed and totally devoid of any diplomatic skills. Rice in narrow-minded and clever but inflexible. The problem is that the PRC has always believed that Taiwan was a part of China and must eventually be reunited. This does not sit well with the people of Taiwan and there has been ongoing tension. To show how clever he was, Bush sent US naval units to the area last year and in essence stuck his tongue out at the mainland Chinese. Now, Beijing has retaliated. They have warned Bush, through the DoS that they would no longer tolerate any interference by the Bush Administration in their problems with Taiwan and they went on to demand, not request, that Bush back off.

He was told, again, not asked, that if he did not make a public statement to the effect that the United States believed that the problems between the two entities could be solved between them and wished to remain strictly neutral, they would retaliate against the US. In other worse, if Beijing decided to invade Taiwan, which they are now seriously planning, Bush would have to butt out and stay out. Their threat? Clever. If he keeps up his current nose-thumbing at Beijing, they will repeg their currency and dump all of their US treasury holdings on the market and never again buy any US paper.

This would be a devastating blow to our economy and the Chinese, and the world banking systems know it. If China did this, all the other countries holding American notes would very quickly follow suit so as not to be caught with increasingly worthless paper. I understand from a friend at the DoS that the note was civil but devoid of any of the usual diplomatic bs. In essence, Bush was ordered to butt out and stay out or the Chinese would at once carry out their threats.

Those in the know are horrified but many of wonder if Bush is even aware of this (he is told what his handlers want him to hear and nothing else…he never reads any newspapers or watches anything on TV but the sports programs…and no one at Foggy Bottom has any idea what to do.) It is well-known that the Chinese do what they say and if there is no Bush response very quickly, there will be hell to pay economically.

The standard threat from the Bush people is that we would cease doing business with them unless they followed our orders but now, the Chinese have been quickly opening up other markets to compensate for their anticipated loss of American trade and the DoS and CIA people feel that they have found more than enough support in Europe and elsewhere from countries that are outraged by the Bush drumfire of malicious threats. This man is going to destroy the United States economy all by his pin-headed self.!”

The Dragon squeezes Taiwan

March 15, 2005
Asia Times
By Bruce Klingner

China's Anti-Secession Law is neither as inflammatory as many had feared nor as bombastic as Beijing's previous statements on cross-straits issues; nonetheless, it will have significant - and not beneficial - ramifications for the region, as well as for China-United States relations. Washington already had called the legislation a needless escalation of tensions that would threaten the delicate diplomatic balance between China and Taiwan. And residents of self-governing Taiwan have been taking to the streets in protest; most prefer the status quo of no-peace-no-war - and big business for Taiwan on the mainland.

The bill was adopted overwhelmingly on Monday by Beijing's rubber-stamp National People's Congress, authorizing China to use military force if Taiwan moves decisively toward or declares formal independence. China considers Taiwan a breakaway province. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao emphasized that the use of force would be a "last resort", after negotiations had failed. The law, nonetheless, remains a legal justification for war, at least from China's point of view.

The law codifies China's unwavering determination to bring Taiwan into formal unification with the mainland under the "one China" principle, while opposing any manifestation of Taiwanese independence or "separatist" activity. The legislation affirms long-standing policies by defining preservation of China's sovereignty and territorial integrity as a core national interest, and declaring that the accomplishment of "reunifying the motherland is the sacred duty of all Chinese people, including the Taiwan compatriots".

The text carries a clear signal to Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian to cease his pursuit of the island's independence "under any name or by any means". The law also warns the US against interfering in "China's internal affairs". The Anti-Secession Law clearly includes the military option as an overarching threat but seeks to soften the potential regional repercussions by repeatedly emphasizing Beijing's goal of peaceful reunification, to be achieved through phased consultations, conducted on an equal footing for as long as there is a "glimmer of hope" of success in reunification.

Most notably, there is no imminent threat of hostilities, since the legislation does not carry either a specified or implied deadline for achieving unification, nor does it delineate proscribed red lines that would trigger an automatic military reprisal. Some Chinese officials in recent years had advocated establishing a time deadline for unification, after which military action would occur. The actual legislation is less threatening.

The passage of the less provocative language puts the onus on Taiwan to determine the level of cross-strait tension through its actions. At the same time, however, Taipei retains the initiative and can in effect modify the onerous aspects of the law by continuing a protracted pursuit of formal independence, even if the word "independence" is not used.

Taiwan, meanwhile, warned China on Monday that it would pay a price for the Anti-Secession Law, which has triggered angry protests on the island and has raised alarm bells from Tokyo to Washington.

"The Anti-Secession Law is a law that authorizes war," Taiwan's cabinet spokesman Cho Jung-tai told reporters. "It has caused resentment in Taiwan and opposition in the international community. China has to bear the responsibility and pay a price for this law," Cho said.

Premier Frank Hsieh will review Taiwan's economic and trade policies with the mainland on Monday, Cho said. Since 1949, when the Nationalists (Kuomintang) lost a civil war to the communists and fled to the island, they have talked about reclaiming the mainland, but that now is hollow rhetoric. Trade and tourism between the two have boomed since the late 1980s, with massive Taiwanese investment in China.

Reading the tea leaves in Beijing

The timing of China's legislation is inopportune, coming as it does after a thaw in bilateral relations, including phased-in restoration of direct transportation links. Moreover, Chen's pursuit of independence had been dealt two setbacks by the Taiwanese electorate. The defeat early last year of the president's referendums - on whether Taiwan should begin a dialogue with Beijing and increase military measures against the Chinese military threat - reflected popular unease with measures that could alienate Beijing. The defeat of Taiwan's pro-independence ruling pan-green coalition, led by Chen's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in legislative elections at year's end was interpreted as another signal by the populace to maintain the status quo - rather than risking instability by pressing for formal independence.

China's Anti-Secession Law comes at a time of Chen's more accommodating policy toward the mainland, manifested by the resignation of four presidential advisers after the president's pledge not to declare independence nor change the island's official name from Republic of China during his second term. Pro-independence supporters now accuse Chen of being "too soft" on China after his 10-point declaration on cross-strait issues, made jointly with James Soong, chairman of the opposition People First Party.

Beijing's motivation in pressing and passing the legislation may have been domestic factors as much as international pressures. The legislative initiative began during a time when cross-strait rhetoric and tensions were higher than in the past. Chinese President Hu Jintao, the supreme leader who only recently assumed all three titles of power from predecessor Jiang Zemin, may have felt compelled to demonstrate his nationalist credentials with the anti-secession legislation, as a way of countering criticism from conservative elements of the Communist Party Central Committee. (Hu is now chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, president of the state and chairman of the party's powerful Central Military Commission.) Any attempts by Hu to delay or derail the anti-secession legislation might have been interpreted as a sign of insufficient resolve in grappling with an issue of great strategic and emotional import to the military and populace.

Nationalist backlash in Taipei

Passage of the Anti-Secession Law risks undermining, or at least postponing, Beijing's ongoing attempt to woo Taiwan through increased economic engagement, as well as its strategic goal of gaining influence throughout Asia by presenting a more benign image. Although Taiwanese President Chen vowed to take a "pragmatic approach" in response, other politicians have been more outspoken in their anger and have also advocated stronger responses. Premier Frank Hsieh said he would support a constitutional amendment to counter China's law - an "anti-annexation law" - but added that the executive would not itself initiate such a revision.

Chiu Tai-san, vice chairman of the islands's Mainland Affairs Council, said the Anti-Secession Law "will clearly challenge Taiwan"; he said it would likely lead to a delay of planned bilateral initiatives as well as a reassessment of the wisdom of the island's investment of billions of dollars in China. Su Tseng-chang, chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party, claimed that 500,000 demonstrators are expected at a demonstration planned for March 26, although it remained unclear whether Chen would attend.

China's passage of the Anti-Secession Law also may invigorate Taiwanese demands for the island's legislature to fund fully a proposed US$18 billion arms package, including eight diesel-electric submarines, 12 P-3C anti-submarine aircraft, and six PAC III Patriot anti-missile batteries. Minister of National Defense Lee Jye warned lawmakers that failure to procure the weapons would cause the cross-strait military balance to tilt severely in China's favor by 2012. China has more than 600 missiles aimed at Taiwan.

Lee was quoted by Taiwanese media as predicting that China would attack Taiwan in five to 10 years and that, "with the defense capability we now have, we may not be able to effectively repel [Chinese missile] attacks". He characterized the Anti-Secession Law's threat of force as "proactive and more serious".

Anger in Washington

The Chinese leadership also risks alienating the administration of US President George W Bush, which will be forced to renew efforts to restrain a reactionary outpouring of independence emotions while simultaneously reassuring Taipei of US military support. Washington has conducted a delicate balancing act of restraining nationalists on both sides of the Taiwan Strait in order to maintain peace and stability.

The task has been made more difficult by Chen's perceived quest for independence and has resulted in strains in Taiwan-US relations. The US is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to defend the island against Chinese attacks, but Washington does not want to be seen as encouraging Taipei, lest it aggravate Beijing or risk escalating tensions. The last thing Washington wants is to be drawn into a cross-strait conflict.

Another dynamic in Washington that will be affected by the Chinese law is the divergence between the executive branch and the US Congress, which has historically advocated more overt support of Taiwanese independence. Lawmakers may now be emboldened to push for closer US-Taiwanese military relations, despite the risk of raising China's ire.

Before the anti-secession bill was passed into law, US government spokesmen characterized it as "unhelpful" and publicly called on Beijing to reconsider its passage; US officials reportedly made pointed suggestions to Chinese counterparts. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan responded angrily by calling US criticism "irresponsible" and urging Washington not to "embolden" Taiwanese separatists.

The potential fallout from the Anti-Secession Law comes at a time of resurrected discussion of the Chinese military threat, a topic of great import during the 2000 US presidential campaign but played down after Beijing's support to the "global war on terror". Director of central intelligence Porter Goss testified during an annual worldwide-threat briefing to Congress on February 16 that "Beijing's military modernization and military buildup [are] tilting the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait [and] improved Chinese capabilities threaten US forces in the region".

Admiral William Fallon, commander of US Pacific Command, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last Tuesday that China's military power is growing at "a rate much faster than China would seem to need for national defense alone", and he called the increase "disconcerting" and "unprecedented".

Washington and the European Union are engaged in a fierce debate over the latter's consideration of rescinding its embargo on weapons sales to China, imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Though the Anti-Secession Law breaks no new ground in Beijing's stated objectives toward Taiwan, it could provide additional fodder for those arguing against removing the arms ban. President Chen sought to influence the debate by arguing that lifting the ban would be "tantamount to encouraging a non-democratic, non-peaceful country to use force against democratic Taiwan". In addition, he argued that lifting the ban would remove potential leverage in forcing Beijing to improve its human-rights record.