Editorial: May all stay calm in Taiwan Strait

From time to time the world is served a reminder that its most volatile flashpoint is probably the Taiwan Strait. Sometimes the reminder comes from the island refuge of non-communist Chinese when it toys with the idea of formally declaring its independence, sometimes the reminder comes from the mainland as it did last week when the National People's Congress in Beijing passed a law formally reserving a right to forcibly resist any declaration of secession. It is not the Chinese protagonists who make this 50-year-old dispute a matter of global interest, it is that the status of Taiwan is of continuing interest to the United States.

The US has made little response to the latest declaration from Beijing but there is no doubt the Bush Government will be as determined as previous Administrations to protect Taiwan from China's forcible re-annexation. Nowhere else in the world are the positions of a superpower and a potential superpower so delicately poised. Washington is probably still analysing the intentions of the Chinese legislation which refers to "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity". Some interpret the wording as a widening of China's scope to use measures, such as blockades, that might fall short of the aggression that would almost certainly trigger a US intervention. But that is pure conjecture.

The US leaves to China's imagination the level of threat that would bring its military might to Taiwan's rescue, and US allies must consider their own position whenever the tension mounts. Australia, according to its Foreign Minister this week, believes the Anzus treaty could be invoked if the US comes to the aid of Taiwan. Alexander Downer said: "We would be bound to consult with the Americans and the Anzus treaty could be invoked, but that is a very different decision from saying we would make a decision to go to war."

New Zealand's Foreign Minister disagrees. Phil Goff said: "Anzus does not provide us with any current obligations and indeed the Anzus Treaty itself, on strict reading of it, would not require a partner nation to become involved." He is no doubt correct "on a strict reading of it". Anzus obliges the partners to treat a threat on any one of them as a threat to them all, and it is hard to see how an American engagement in armed conflict over Taiwan could be regarded as a direct threat to the US.

But genuine allies do not read treaties in this literal way. They read them as Australia does Anzus, in a spirit of abiding loyalty. New Zealand's view of Anzus commitments is now academic in any case; we are not in the discussion. Australia is, and while it might counsel its ally against armed intervention in this part of the world, Australia would undoubtedly act in the spirit of the alliance if it came to that. New Zealand's task is to weigh up the balance of its own interests in any conflict between the US and China and be ready to preserve such progress as it has made towards more liberal trading agreements with each of them.

Trade liberalisation agreements with China are probably more effective than any military force in the eventual solution of the "Taiwan problem". The more China trades, the more like Taiwan it becomes. Already Taiwan is taking careful notice of the fortunes of Hong Kong since Britain's free-trading colony was reunited with China. Hong Kong continues to cautiously enjoy a high degree of autonomy and, as shown by the resignation of its Beijing-appointed chief executive, China is not completely immune to Hong Kong's will.

Taiwan is as Chinese as Hawaii is American. If political liberties come to the mainland, secession will probably be a dead issue. Until then, the US will preserve the status quo, and other countries must do what they can to keep the straits calm.