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.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this