The summit meeting between US President George W. Bush and his Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin (
The favorable situation Taiwan has enjoyed over these two years, thanks to the goodwill shown by Bush officials, is nevertheless slowly eroding due to the changing international situation, Jiang's scrupulous handling and reckless actions on Taiwan's part.
If Taiwan still intends to tread on thin ice and bring up topics that Beijing finds irritating and Washington disapproves of, it will have the same effect as this time -- helping the US and China discard their divided opinions on the Taiwan issue and reach more consensus.
First, Jiang did not repeat the old tune of not ruling out the possibility of military attacks against Taiwan, nor did Bush reiterate that the US will do whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend itself.
This suggests that both sides had entered into an agreement not to bring up sensitive topics so as to create a more harmonious atmosphere.
It remains to be seen whether or not future US-Sino summits will follow this mode and even extend them to talks between officials from the two sides.
Second, the US administration, especially the US president, would only refer to the three communiques in the past when the "one China" policy was mentioned, and cite the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) when asked about its promise regarding Taiwan's security.
But in a joint press conference during the APEC summit, Bush, for the first time, placed the three communiques and the TRA under the "one China" framework.
He also emphasized that Taiwan and China must peacefully resolve their disagreements through dialogue.
From a strategic viewpoint, Bush apparently intended to use this new "one China" framework to give a formal and document-based connotation to "strategic clarity," a principle he put forth shortly after his inauguration.
This new principle of strategic clarity -- as long as Taiwan does not claim independence, China shall not resort to military assault -- restricts both Beijing's and Taipei's freedom to interpret unification or independence.
Third, different viewpoints on Taiwan independence were expressed among US officials over the past months. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz mentioned his opposition to Taiwan independence.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage mentioned "no support of Taiwan independence" and "not supporting Taiwan independence does not necessarily mean opposing independence."
But Bush's statement that "We do not support Taiwan independence" was the first time he formally expressed his stand on this issue.
Two parts pertaining to this problem are worthy of our observation. One, when asked by the press what concrete measures will be taken to realize the US promise in support of "one China," Bush said the "one China" principle means the problems between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be resolved peacefully.
He added that since the US is influential in this region, it plans to make sure that the problem is resolved peacefully, including non-US support for Taiwan independence.
Apparently, not supporting Taiwan independence is only one of the methods to peacefully resolve the cross-strait issue.
In addition to not resorting to military assault, China's government agencies should seek a further understanding of the feasibility of other methods, which might involve both sides or merely target Taiwan.
Two, US officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, have pledged that Bush would never repeat the "three no's" policies advanced by his predecessor Bill Clinton.
But now Bush himself has mentioned the first "no." Apart from changes in the international situation and Jiang's persistent efforts, the rash statement of "one country on each side [of the Strait]" put forth by President Chen Shui-bian (
Fourth, the Clinton administration developed strategic dialogue with China, and announced in 1998 that both sides were to move toward strategic partnership.
Prior to the presidential elections, Bush strenuously denied that the US and China were strategic partners and claimed that they are strategic competitors. But after he took the nation's helm, officials including Vice President Dick Cheney have avoided mentioning "strategic competitors." US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell even described China as a partner.
Before the summit was held, the US and China had reached an agreement to resume cross-strait dialogue, hold consultation talks on national defense and carry on security dialogue. Bush said during the press conference that the US is seeking to establish frank, constructive and cooperative relations with China, including conducting new dialogue on security issues.
The Bush government might not agree with the Xinhua News Agency report that the two nations have carried on high-level strategic dialogue. But it is an undeniable fact that the Bush administration has achieved more in the mutual dialogue and actual cooperative relations on anti-terrorism, arms control, non-proliferation, North Korea, Iraq and the strengthening of economic ties, than its predecessor.
Taipei cannot rule out the possibility of closed-door deals wrapped up in the Bush-Jiang meeting, which might gradually emerge as the two are resolving the problems regarding North Korea and attacks against Iraq. On the whole, Jiang has successfully achieved his goal of reversing the Bush government's tilt toward Taipei. Although Taipei cannot foil Jiang's efforts and is incapable of influencing the international situation, it should at least avoid assisting a rapprochement between Beijing and Washington.
Edward Chen is the director of the Graduate Institute of American Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry