US Defense Secretary William Cohen told a Chinese audience in July that the US is looking for ways to help bring about a peaceful reunification between Taiwan and China, so said the Pentagon's press service.
Reporter Linda Kozaryn quickly made a correction, saying that she had mixed up a Chinese questioner's phrase "peaceful reunification" and Cohen's reply using "peaceful reconciliation."
The transcript shows that the questioner stated, "Another [issue] is we truly hope the US can help contribute to China's reunification .... after the return of Hong Kong and Macau, Taiwan is the only thing that is not united by China. So, we hope genuinely that the US can make positive contributions to this reunification process and not provide concrete military technological assistance to Taiwan."
Cohen's response, "[W]e are indeed looking for ways in which we can be helpful in bringing about a peaceful reconciliation between Taiwan and China."
On the other hand, AIT chairman Richard Bush was unequivocal in a speech to the Taiwanese American East Coast conference on July 2 that the US maintains "a confidence that the two sides have the creativity to resolve this issue through cross-strait dialogue on their own. The United States will neither play the role of mediator nor pressure either side to negotiate."
The way the US plans to be helpful in the dialogue, Bush stated quite clearly, is to "insist that the Taiwan Strait issue should be resolved peacefully ... Furthermore, to quote the Taiwan Relations Act, it is US policy to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
Turning to critics who claim that "the Clinton Administration is appeasing Beijing at Taiwan's expense," Bush replied, "Appeasement is a very strong word; it is also the wrong word to describe United States policy. The PRC leadership does have more to learn about the complexities of the Taiwan situation, but I believe that it wants a peaceful resolution ... and understands full well that the US insists upon peaceful resolution. Nor is the United States going to tell Taiwan's new leadership to accept PRC terms for negotiations. That would go against our long-standing policy and be antithetical to our values."
Bush continued, "We do have a profound interest in the preservation of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait region. We hope that together the two sides can find a mutually acceptable basis to resume dialogue and maximize areas for cooperation."
At a Heritage Foundation event on July 20, "A US Role in Taiwan Strait Negotiations?" policy analysts underscored Bush's key points. Robert Suettinger, formerly at the National Security Council and currently a Brookings Institution fellow, said he was a "stern advocate" of the US not trying to mediate the cross-straits issue.
Suettinger gave two interesting reasons. First, he said, US domestic politics would come to play. "Who would set out the politics" that frame the US position, Suettinger asked? The discus-sion, he said, about proposed solutions would be ugly and lengthy. It would turn "partisan, public, and simple minded. It wouldn't succeed. We are involved now," Suettinger stated, and should have "no further involvement."
Suettinger also raised a second question that only one who had labored inside the administration would fully understand. "Bureaucratic politics would also doom US mediation," he said with the voice of experience. There would be a royal battle over which agency would be in charge of the US effort. Suettinger believes that "strategic ambiguity has not been the US policy for at least 5 years."
He has frequently told those discussing US policy to "look at our deeds not our words," pointing to the 1996 deployment of two aircraft carrier groups in the Taiwan Strait during the Chinese missile firings. Strategic ambiguity is "not the policy now," Suettinger concluded.
"Our policy is: you on both sides have to resolve the issue, peacefully." Robert Manning of the Council on Foreign Relations noted that because the US "is the security system in Asia," the US already plays a "critical role" in the region and, in that sense, "we are involved in the Taiwan Strait issue."
Manning sees the US strategic interest in East Asian stability as expressed in the term "peaceful resolution" of the Taiwan-China issue and believes that all US communiques and statements are "premised on this phrase, particularly the 1982 Communique about arms sales."
"The US has made clear that resolution must be peaceful," Manning stated, "meaning no unilateral actions. Any resolution that is non-coercive is perfectly fine by the US." He added a hope that died aborning, "It would be useful if the G8 meeting would embrace that statement."
Ron Montaperto of the National Defense University agreed that the US "ought not change its current approach. We are in a state of impasse, with both Beijing and Taipei having gone as far as they can go." Just back from a trip to China, Montaperto declared, "Both sides have an awareness that this is an extremely dangerous time and are trying to shift away from the current situation."
Montaperto believes that both sides "have painted themselves into a corner." Chen Shui-bian
"If he moves away from the two states theory, he fails as president," Montaperto declared. "If he goes further, he also fails because of his weak position."
On the other side of the water, Montaperto believes Jiang Zemin
John Tkacik, former State Department staffer and currently publisher of China Business Intelligence, was his usual straightforward self, declaring, "If you like the status quo, don't change anything. I like the status quo. There won't be any war in the Taiwan Strait. There is a catch 22 that prevents war -- China says independence means war, Taiwan says war means independence."
Producing a raft of statistics, about Taiwan-China trade and investment, Tkacik said, "Taiwan is too dependent to be independent. Taiwan is way too much invested in China to have these assets threatened. There is no chance for Taiwan independence and there is no need for it as Taiwan is able to deal with China."
Given all this, Tkacik concluded, "The only role for the US is to guarantee Taiwan's security. The US should not fear selling high-tech weapons to Taiwan. By not giving Taiwan adequate security, the US is taking China's side."
Peaceful resolution, but no doubt about the US commitment to the self-defense needs of Taiwan. Sounds like full implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act to me.
Michael J. Fonte is a policy analyst for the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA).
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with