Despite the fact that it is easy to become cynical, especially about politics, even in a democracy, it should not be forgotten that regimes do matter and that individual leaders do matter. Contrasting former US president Bill Clinton's 1998 visit to China and the just-completed visit of President George W. Bush to Japan, South Korea and China illustrate these two realities very well.
In 1998 Clinton decided to accelerate his scheduled visit to China by six months. The reasons were never publicly explained, but Republicans noted that the visit coincided with the date of the Paula Jones trial (which was subsequently cancelled).
There is much reason to speculate that the Chinese, sensing Clinton's urgency, demanded and got Clinton's agreement on the following: to stay in China for nine days, to not visit any other country (which really meant, don't visit Japan) and to make a forthcoming statement on Taiwan from Beijing's perspective.
None of these three things were in the national interest of the US; indeed, if they were Chinese demands, the communist government almost certainly viewed the president's doing them as a sign of weakness. In fact they were done, certainly in the interest of the Chinese and possibly also in the interest of Clinton personally, rather than of his country.
In 1981, former president Ronald Reagan, who accurately labeled the Soviet Union an evil empire, decided to reappoint Mike Mansfield, a Democrat who was appointed by his predecessor Jimmy Carter, as ambassador to Japan. Mansfield advised Reagan to tell the Japanese government where he would like to see US-Japan relations go during his administration. Even if they didn't agree with the message, Mansfield said, Japanese officials would like to know the presi-dent's vision.
In his Jan. 29 "State of the Union" address, Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil," causing some criticism in Japan, South Korea, Europe and the US that the president was using inflammatory language.
Looking at the results of the president's recent Asian trip, I doubt he regrets having used a realistic description of three countries whose activities threaten regional and possibly even global stability.
As he explained in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, Bush did not threaten war with any or all of the countries he listed. Some have pointed out that China could have been listed as well. Despite his decision not to list China, there is little doubt that the Chinese understood what the US president said.
What is truly remarkable and important is what Bush did say, particularly in his speech to Japan's Diet. Instead of saying something which might be popular locally, as Clinton did in Shanghai in 1998, on the sensitive issue of Taiwan,Bush stated that "America will remember our commitments to the people on Taiwan."
The statement drew a huge ovation, including from many young members of the Diet.
Bush's statement and the reaction of the Japanese parliamentarians is reflective of the strategic reality that, despite the fact that both Washington and Tokyo do not officially recognize Taiwan as an independent, sovereign state, Taiwan's de facto independence is in the strategic national interests of both the US and Japan, and will remain so given the nature of the current regime in Beijing which wants the US out of Asia and wants both Taiwan and Japan under China's sphere of influence.
Fortunately, the events of the past decade make Taiwan's status as an autonomous democratic republic a reality. The ROC Constitution has, since 1991, recognized that its administration is limited to only Taiwan, the people of Taiwan freely and fairly elected their chief executive in 1996 and 2000, and in December, the KMT was replaced as the largest party in the legislature.
Given its economic freedom, prosperity and its political development, Taiwan needs only security to ensure its autonomy.
Very much unlike Clinton who temporarily cast doubt on whether the US would prevent Taiwan from falling to a communist military invasion, Bush reaffirmed the 1950 pledge of then president Harry Truman, honored by all of his successors until 1998, that the US Seventh Fleet would prevent Taiwan from intimidation by military force from Beijing.
Bush had no reason to back away from his "axis of evil" statement on his Asian trip. And he visited three countries important to the US in priority order. I'm sure the Chinese did not like Bush's comments, especially those about Taiwan made in Japan, but I'm sure they respected his words, far more than those they heard in Shanghai four years ago.
Communist dictatorship regimes loath democracies, but respect those with overwhelming military power. Like presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Reagan before him, Bush "spoke softly" (but with principle and conviction) and "carried a big stick." Regimes do matter; so do strong leaders.
James Auer is a professor at Vanderbilt University and former special assistant to the secretary of defense for Japanese affairs.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations