• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Michael D. Swaine"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media

Bush Has a Tiger by the Tail With His China Policy

Link Copied
By Michael D. Swaine
Published on Jun 17, 2002
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Source: Carnegie

Bush Has a Tiger by the Tail With His China Policy

Michael D. Swaine, Senior Associate and Co-Director of the China Program

Reprinted with permission from The Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2002

While the nation's attention is focused on terrorism, the Middle East and South Asia, an equally significant danger has been growing in East Asia. The Bush administration is intensifying U.S. political and military ties with Taiwan in ways that could increase the chances of a confrontation with mainland China.

Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian visited the U.S. twice last year for extended "transit stops" and held unofficial meetings with American politicians. Senior Taiwanese Cabinet officials have traveled to U.S. cities as well. Equally notable, Taiwan gets unprecedented amounts of U.S. military aid, including an increasing number of sophisticated weapons and other support, such as intelligence and reconnaissance data links.

Although some of this began during the Clinton era, it has expanded greatly since President Bush took office. Administration officials insist that more U.S. support is necessary to deter a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan, something Washington is pledged to prevent. They also argue that a more confident Taipei enjoying stronger U.S. support and supposedly under greater U.S. control will be less inclined--and less able--to move toward independence or to end-run the administration with appeals to Congress, as occurred during the Clinton presidency. Reducing the chances of a dangerous miscalculation by China while preventing destabilizing actions by Taiwan should be at the core of any U.S. policy. But the one-sided Bush approach instead signals to Taipei and Beijing that the U.S. will probably tolerate and might encourage any movement toward independence short of the most obvious, such as a formal declaration. It also signals that the U.S. will defend Taiwan if China responds to such movement with a show of force.

This approach is dangerous for several reasons:

* The administration does not know where all of Beijing's internal lines in the sand lie; indeed, the Chinese themselves may not know this. China's leaders fear that incremental movement by the U.S. and Taiwan toward closer ties and what they see as a more permanent independent status for Taipei will build an unstoppable momentum. Beijing could feel compelled to act militarily before such momentum develops. And that could happen no matter how strong Taiwan is militarily.

* One cannot assume that Chen will resist crossing Beijing's less-obvious internal lines, whether for domestic political reasons or out of a search for independence. In fact, he seems to be pressing for a formal invitation to Washington, presumably to guarantee his reelection in 2004.

* Chen is supporting a variety of efforts to discredit the "one-China" concept domestically. The Bush administration does not discourage any of these actions, which are viewed as highly provocative by Beijing. The tolerant Bush approach toward Taipei indirectly encourages pro-Taiwan members of Congress to undermine the one-China concept and to move even closer to Taiwan, thereby creating even greater separation from the mainland. There is growing support on Capitol Hill for a Chen visit as well as for joint military operations between the U.S. and Taiwan, another likely provocation for Beijing.

The Chinese thus far have avoided reacting more aggressively to the Bush policy line because of domestic distractions, a desire to avoid damaging the improving U.S.-China relationship and a sense of growing influence over Taiwan resulting from Taiwan's increasing economic dependence. But these restraints could decline. And even if they do not, they are not a guarantee that Beijing will not take action.

Absent more credible efforts to reassure China by restraining Taiwan and correcting its pro-Taipei policy, the Bush administration may ensure rather than deter a future conflict with China.

About the Author

Michael D. Swaine

Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program

Swaine was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and one of the most prominent American analysts in Chinese security studies.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    What Kind of Global Order Should Washington and Beijing Strive For?

      Michael D. Swaine

  • Commentary
    A Smarter U.S. Strategy for China in Four Steps

      Michael D. Swaine

Michael D. Swaine
Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Michael D. Swaine
MilitaryForeign PolicyChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Shipping port at dawn from above
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.

    Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.

      • Afren Akhter

      Afreen Akhter

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Man speaking into two mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran War

    One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber, Sam Worby

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Fog of AI War

    In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.

      Raluca Csernatoni

  • Army personnel stand guard after a pro-monarchy protest turns violent in Kathmandu, Nepal, on March 28, 2025.
    Article
    The Shadow of the Military in Modern South Asia

    Military rule is now a defining political factor in South Asia. Here’s how analysts can understand and account for it.

      Paul Staniland

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.