What exactly is Ambassador Chen doing for us?

Ambassador Stephen S. F. Chen (陳錫蕃), the head of Taiwan's Economic and Cultural Represen-tative Office (TECRO) in the US, has been the target of numerous legislators' criticisms over his negative attitude toward the "Taiwan Security Enhancement Act" which is under deliberation in the US Congress. As a result, the Legisla-tive Yuan's foreign relations committee summoned Chen to answer questions at the end of December.

In a written report not formally reviewed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), Chen apparently criticized President Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) diplomatic initiative. Chen candidly pointed out that Lee's declaration of a "special state-state" relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait -- , without prior consultation with the US -- directly clashed with the US' cross-strait policy framework and adversely affected the "mutual trust" between Taiwan and the US. Chen's report challenged the government's position and thus attracted massive media coverage.

"Stephen Chen bursts the Emperor's new cloth," was a China Times headline. The United Daily News also used Chen's remarks to criticize Lee's formula.

Should Lee have consulted with the US and obtained its approval before making his statement?

If the US had disagreed and Lee went ahead and said what he did to the Deutsche Welle, wouldn't US-Taiwan relations have suffered a greater jolt?

If the Taiwan government had consulted with US and obtained its consent first, wouldn't Beijing have criticized Washington for dividing up China and endorsing Taiwan independence?

It was very unwise and inconsiderate for the US State Department to ask for Taiwan's prior consultation. Taiwan's government should have made its position clear to the US more forcefully, not just accepted the State Department's view, as Chen appears to.

Is there a lack of mutual trust between Taiwan and the US? If yes, what explanation has the TECRO made during these past few months?

Minister of Foreign Affairs C. J. Chen (程建人) told the media that Lee's "special state-to-state" relations statement did arouse initial concern in Washington and, to a certain degree, it did adversely affect Taiwan's relation with the US. However, the minister said,following high-level communications all the suspicions and concerns have gradually been erased.

Should we believe the ambassador or the foreign minister?

With respect to legislators' criticisms that he did not lobby hard in favor of the "Taiwan Security Enhancement Act," Ambassador Chen said that the consistent position of our government has been "to hope for its enactment, but without getting involved" (樂觀其成, 但不 涉入). He also explained that it was inappropriate for him, as a diplomat, "to interfere with the domestic affairs of the US." Are things really this simple?

Why did the 10 American public relations firms retained by MOFA sit idly by?

To pander to Beijing, American businesses have lobbied against the bill in Congress. US exports to Taiwan exceed those to China by more than one and half times. American firms which do business with Taiwan could have lobbied on its behalf, why haven't they?

God saves those who save themselves! The ambassador can't simply hope for the best and stand by idly. Even if TECRO can't directly get involved, there are still many other things it could do.

There are hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese in the US, including American-born Taiwanese. Most are US citizens and they constitute a long neglected yet significant force in mainstream American society. The ambassador's relations with them are less than ideal. Legislators have received many letters of complaint from Taiwanese in the US criticizing the ambassador for his "Great China" mindset and ideology and his reiterations of China's unification. Many Taiwanese-Americans do not want to have anything to do with him.