This article is an excerpt from The China Brief, reprinted here with the permission of the Forum for Chinese American Exchange at Stanford (FACES). FACES is an international organization dedicated to promoting constructive, bilateral US-China relations in the global community by fostering personal relationships and mutual understanding among future leaders in the US and China. Please find the original article at: http://faces.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/

U.S. Finalizes Arms Sales to Taiwan

Cross-strait relations grew tense earlier this month as a result of two key events, one dramatic and the other bureaucratic. The first event came in early January, when the United States awarded billion-dollar contracts to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Corporation to supply Taiwan with advanced defensive missile systems. The sales, which include over 250 ground-to-air defensive missiles, make up a large part of the $6.46 billion dollar arms sale agreed up on October 2008 by the Bush administration. The weapons include the state-of-the-art Patriot Missile Defense System, a ground-to-air missile interceptor which has been installed throughout Taiwan to counter the over 1,000 ballistic and cruise missiles reportedly stationed just across the strait in Mainland China. Taiwan, while it has enjoyed friendlier relations with China since the election of President Ma Ying-jeou in March 2008, is still at odds with China on many issues and claimed that the arms would strengthen its position in reconciliation negotiations with the mainland. Beijing, which still views the island as part of its territory, has long regarded arms sales by the United States as meddling in its domestic affairs, and issued a harsh rebuke on January 12.

However, the Chinese undertook a far more significant step to express their displeasure on January 11 by successfully testing their own anti-missile defense system. The strategic implications of the test are open to interpretation, with international analysts pointing out the technical advancements indicated by a successful test of this complexity, while Chinese officials continue to emphasize the defensive nature of their military capabilities in situations such as this. Though most around the world saw the test as a direct show of Beijing‘s disapproval of the Taiwan arms deals, Zhu Feng, deputy director of Peking University‘s Center for Strategic and International Studies, argued that the test was also intended as a show of strength and pride for Chinese domestic audiences: ―China still lacks the leverage to force the White House to stop these sales…so they feel like they must make a lot of noise.

China Retaliates Against US Arms Sales to Taiwan

On January 30, the Chinese government announced its retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. $6.4 billion arms sales to Taiwan, claiming the sale endangers its national security. The measures announced include sanctions against U.S. companies involved in the arms sales and cancellation of some military exchange programs between the U.S. and China. China‟s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi stated China‟s solemn position on this issue, and urged the U.S. to stop the sales. Later on February 2, Beijing reaffirmed that there would be measured retaliation.

The Obama administration notified Congress on Jan. 29 its proposed arms sales to Taiwan, which includes 60 Blackhawk helicopters, and 114 Patriot missiles, together with items such as two Osprey mine-hunting ships and tracking equipment. The arms sales, covered in the January 25th issue of the China Brief, provoked the toughest Chinese response in the past three decades.

When considered in light of recent points of contention between the two sides—Copenhagen, Google, the Dalai Lama and monetary policy— this issue only deepens the tension between the U.S. and China, predicting Sino-U.S. relations will be bumpy in 2010. However, some experts believe the frictions are normal. “The U.S. needs China’s help on many aspects, including the Korean and Iranian nuclear issues. It will weigh its action first and try to contain the risks,” said Fan Jishe, a scholar in US studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Chinese Officials Protest Obama’s Plans to Meet the Dalai Lama

Adding to the already tense atmosphere surrounding US-China relations, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry spoke out on Tuesday against President Obama’s plans to meet with the Dalai Lama. In an official statement, Ma Zhaoxu declared that “China resolutely opposes the visit by the Dalai Lama to the United States, and resolutely opposes the U.S. leader having contact with the Dalai Lama in any name or any form.” In response, White House spokesman Bill Burton stated that President Obama had declared his intention to meet with the Dalai Lama to his Chinese hosts during his visit in November 2009, and that he holds firm in his intention to do so, though no date has yet been set.

In fact, this exchange is already the second controversy involving the Dalai Lama during Obama’s thirteen months in office. In the first incident, which came in October 2009 and was covered in the October 19th issue of the China Brief, President Obama declined to meet with the Tibetan leader during his visit to Washington; while Obama may have hoped the move would mollify Chinese leaders, it sparked mild outrage in Washington D.C., where some accused the president of “kowtowing” to Chinese pressure.

Obama Finally Meets Dalai Lama in Spite of Strong Protests from Beijing

After months of anticipation and frequent warnings from China, President Barack Obama met with the Dalai Lama at the White House on February 18, continuing a series of meetings between U.S. presidents and the Tibetan leader which first began with the elder George Bush. However, this meeting in particular has been the subject of great anticipation ever since Obama declined to meet with the Dalai Lama when he visited Washington D.C. in November 2009 for fear of angering the Chinese in advance of his visit to China later that same month. (For prior coverage, see the February 8, 2010 and October 19, 2009 issues of the China Brief)

The meeting between the two leaders took place behind closed doors in the Map Room of the White House, perhaps symbolizing a more informal meeting than a conversation in the Oval Office would have. Despite the discrete, low-key nature of the meeting, Beijing was nevertheless furious, issuing a strong statement through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, claiming that the summit ―seriously interferes in China’s internal politics and seriously hurts the national feelings of the Chinese people. Chinese leaders even went so far as to summon the American ambassador, Jon Huntsman, to voice their discontent.

This level of outrage, which may be baffling to outside observers, is a product of China‘s extreme sensitivity on issues of ―sovereignty and territorial integrity. Tibet is not the only issue in which this sentiment plays a role: the recent U.S. arms deal with Taiwan probed another sore point in Chinese national pride, as the PRC still considers Taiwan a rogue province which will one day be reunited with the mainland. The meeting between Obama and the Dalai Lama was offensive, at its root, because it continued to confer legitimacy on the claims of the Tibetan government-in-exile, which Beijing considers a separatist movement and which in recent years has wavered between advocating full independence and accepting its status as an autonomous region under Chinese rule.

Google and China at Odds over Alleged Cyber Attacks

In the afternoon on Jan. 12th, the Internet giant Google disclosed in its official blog its decision to consider quitting the Chinese market, followed a cyber attack it believes was aimed at gathering information on Chinese human rights activists.

The move follows a clampdown on the Internet in China, where search requests that include words like ―Tiananmen Square massacre or ―Dalai Lama come up blank. In recent months, the government has also blocked Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Google‘s video-sharing service. Google acknowledged the decision “may well mean” the closure of Google.cn and its offices in China. While Google‘s business in China is now small, analysts say that the country could soon become one of the most lucrative Internet and mobile markets, and a withdrawal would significantly reduce Google‘s long-term growth. “We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all,” it added.

After the disclosure of Google‘s decision, hundreds of Chinese college students went to Google.cn’s headquarters in Beijing to commemorate Google. ―Google‘s search engine is much better and inclusive than that of Baidu, a randomly interviewed student told a journalist. However, in China, there is also different voice, mainly from Chinese professors and journalists. They claim that Google‘s threat to quit the China market is premeditated: the true reason Google wants to quit the China market, said one Mr. Gao, a Chinese journalist, is their failure in competition with the largest search engine company, Baidu. Emphasizing on localization, Baidu has proved a huge success in China and has a market share of over 70% in China. Google.cn is actually on the brink of being eliminated and used this incident as a noble excuse for decently quitting the China market. Mr. Gao added that Google‘s complaints about Chinese government regulations and censorship are completely unjustifiable. ―Those regulations and censorship have been there long before Google entered China; at that time, Google entered China market despite the heavy regulations. Now, Google imputes all its failure to the Chinese government when it sees little chance to make profit in China; this is obviously ridiculous.

In the time since Google‘s stunning announcement, the issue has only gained in stature. The U.S. issued a formal protest to China concerning the incident, escalating the issue from a conflict between a U.S. corporation and the Chinese government to a point of tension between the two nations themselves. Google continues to weigh the consequences of an exit from the Chinese market, while Beijing has issued a vehement denial of any government involvement in the attacks, stating that such claims, ―[are] groundless and [aim] to denigrate China.

Google Cyber Attacks Traced to Two Chinese Schools; Beijing Vehemently Denies Any Involvement

In the wake of Google‘s announcement on January 12 that it had been the target of repeated hacking attacks from within China, the New York Times and other news outlets reported on February 18 that the source of these intrusions had been traced to two schools in China. The first school is Shanghai Jiaotong University, a prestigious technical institution which boasts one of China‘s best computer science programs. The second, which was described in sensationalist headlines as a military institute, was the Lanxiang Vocational School in Shandong province. Despite this new information, it seems that investigators—mostly private software firms hired by Google or other victimized U.S. companies—are no closer to learning the identities of the hackers. In the process of denouncing the ―baseless accusations‖ against Shanghai Jiaotong University, its spokesperson pointed out the fact that the Times report was based on a simple IP address, which does little to determine the perpetrator of the attack. As a SJTU professor explained in a separate statement, it is entirely possible that ―that one of the university‘s I.P. addresses was hijacked by others, which frequently happens. Lanxiang Vocational School, for its part, responded to the accusations through Li Zixiang, the school‘s party chief, who said that ―investigation in the staff found no trace that the attacks originated from our school and that the school had no ties to the Chinese military. Zhou Hui, the director of the school‘s general office, qualified this statement in admitting that 38 of the schools graduates had been recruited into the military since 2006, but that they were mostly selected for talents in ―auto repair, cooking and electrical welding. However, this description directly contradicts the assertions of a Washington Post article from February 20, which described the school in the following terms: ―Lanxiang Vocational helped create what has become known as China’s “Great Firewall,” which filters Internet information in the country. According to the school’s Web site, it established a military department in 2006 to train “high quality technology officers.” Many of those students have gone on to form “the important technology backbone” of the People’s Liberation Army, the site said. Though there is still debate about the involvement of the two schools and the identities of the hackers themselves, their method of entry into various websites has been identified. The hackers reportedly exploited a security weakness in Microsoft‘s Internet Explorer 6 to gain access to secure information, introducing their malware into the target system by mimicking a message sent from a co-worker and attaching the hostile software

Readers' Comments