US President George W. Bush's inclusion of Taiwan as one of the US' "good friends" in his Feb. 16 radio address was the most important policy statement he made about the island during his recent Asia tour.
Reflecting on his upcoming trip, Bush said he would "thank Japan for five decades of friendship." Then he noted, "All around this great [Pacific] ocean, we see good friends -- Canada and Australia, New Zealand and Thailand, the Philippines and Taiwan. And they will find in America a nation that is determined and patient and committed to the great cause of building a world that is more peaceful, more secure, and more prosperous."
Taiwan's presence on this list was no mistake. Presidential speeches are carefully scripted, with White House aides and State Department wonks weighing every word. To call Taiwan a "good friend" along with the other strong US allies on the Pacific Rim was meant to be a signal of just how Bush sees this part of the world and Taiwan's importance in his worldview.
Bush returned to the theme of democratic friends in the Pacific when speaking in Tokyo. "Realizing this vision, a fellowship of free Pacific nations, will require Japan and America to work more closely together than ever," he declared.
Then Bush threw the mantle of US military might over democratic friends in the region. "America, like Japan, is a Pacific nation, drawn by trade and values and history to be a part of Asia's future. We stand more committed than ever to a forward presence in this region. We will continue to show American power and purpose in support of the Philippines, Australia and Thailand. We will deter aggression against the Republic of Korea. Together, Japan and the United States will strengthen our ties of security. America will remember our commitments to the people of Taiwan. And to help protect the people of this region, and our friends and allies in every region, we will press on with an effective program of missile defenses."
The emphasis that Bush placed as a presidential candidate on "friends and allies," particularly on Japan, has been implemented in his administration. The fact that Bush has now met with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi four times reflects the key place Japan holds in the strategic thinking of officials such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. In fact, while Bush was in Tokyo praising Japan as "the bedrock for peace and prosperity" in the Pacific, Wolfowitz also praised Japan, before a US-Japan Business Conference, for its military support in the war against terrorism. "These are not things Japan was obligated to do," Wolfowitz said. "These were actions of a close and trusted friend."
Bush's Tokyo statement also reflects the Pentagon's Septem-ber 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. In the foreward, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld states the "four key goals that will guide the development of US forces and capabilities, their deployment and use:
1. Assuring allies and friends of the United States' steadiness of purpose and its capability to fulfill its security commitments;
2. Dissuading adversaries from undertaking programs or operations that could threaten US interests or those of our allies and friends;
3. Deterring aggression and coercion by deploying forward the capacity to swiftly defeat attacks and impose severe penalties for aggression on an adversary's military capability and supporting infrastructure; and
4. Decisively defeating any adversary if deterrence fails."
Allies and friends, friends and allies, the theme recurs throughout both Bush's speeches and this document. When speaking of US national interests regarding "honoring international commitments," the Review states that they include the "security and well-being of allies and friends" and "precluding hostile domination of critical areas, particularly Europe, Northeast Asia, the East Asian littoral, and the Middle East and Southwest Asia."
A footnote defines the East Asian littoral "as the region stretching from south of Japan through Australia and into the Bay of Bengal." Taiwan, of course, sits right there at the head of the line.
In January, Richard Bush, chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), said he thought US-Taiwan "ties are stronger now than at any time in the last 50 years." He went on to thank Taiwan for its response to the tragedy of Sept. 11. "It is in times of crisis that we learn who our true friends are," he stated. "And the United States knew from the beginning of this particular crisis where Taiwan stood."
In his speech, the AIT chief twinned the Taiwan Relations Act with "the long-standing principle of US policy," namely "the fundamental emphasis on peace and an unconditional insistence that the Taiwan Strait issue should be resolved peacefully."
President Bush, of course, made it quite clear to his Chinese hosts that the TRA was a central element in US policy. "When my country makes an agreement, we stick with it," the president declared. "And there is [an agreement] called the Taiwan Relations Act, and I honor that act, which says we will help Taiwan defend herself if provoked."
Richard Bush also gave a more ample description of the US "one China" than the US president was able to deliver in Beijing. "The Bush administration believes that how the Taiwan Strait issue is resolved is up to the two parties concerned. That is, our `one China' policy in no way dictates for Taipei or Beijing how substantively cross-strait differences should be resolved."
In his joint press conference with PRC President Jiang Zemin (江澤民), President Bush did not accept Jiang's "basic position of peaceful reunification and `one country, two systems' for the solution of the Taiwan question." Instead, Bush responded, "The position of my government has not changed over the years. We believe in the peaceful settlement of this issue." Pressed on the issue by Tsinghua University students, Bush reiterated his stand, "I can't say it any more clearly, that I am anxious that there be a peaceful resolution that's going to require both parties to come to a solution. And that's what I mean by peaceful dialogue."
Richard Bush had elaborated on this point back in January. "Speaking for myself only," he demurred, "it does not seem constructive for one side to set preconditions for a resumption of dialogue that the other side even suspects would be tantamount to conceding a fundamental issue before discussion begins. For Side A, in effect, to ask Side B to concede a major point would only raise Side B's doubts about Side A's good intentions. Also, it does not seem helpful for one side to say that anything can be discussed once certain conditions are met, but rule out in advance discussion of approaches other than its preferred approach."
President Bush also empha-sized "no provocation by either party for a peaceful dialogue." Briefing reporters before the trip, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice defined this point by saying, "The United States doesn't want to see any unilateral change in the status quo. This is an issue that people on both sides of the Straits need to resolve peacefully."
"The position of my government has not changed over the years," President Bush told Jiang.
But Taiwan has changed from an authoritarian state to a democracy and Richard Bush noted the impact this has had on US policy. "The Bush administration believes that any agreement regarding the Taiwan Strait issue, in addition to being reached peacefully, has to be acceptable to the people of Taiwan."
Put the policy pieces together and the Bush administration's line is quite clear -- Taiwan is a democratic friend; mess with Taiwan at the risk of messing with the US. Peaceful, mutually acceptable negotiations are the answer to the Taiwan Strait issue -- and any resolution must have the consent of the people of Taiwan.
Michael J. Fonte is a senior policy analyst for the Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US