At the press conference held following the conclusion of the summit between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), Bush seemed to do away with conventions of the diplomatic code by talking of "disagreements" between the two leaders, rather than their having a "frank discussion," in Hu's presence. Both sides will scrutinize and dispute this very public act of causing loss of face and its significance for global relations.
This was Hu's first official visit to the US as Chinese leader, and many China experts such as Andrew Nathan and Elizabeth Economy, prior to his visit, were saying that the main purpose of his trip was to reduce US dissatisfaction with China. The major point of contention here was the US$200 billion trade deficit between the two countries, prompting Hu to send a trade mission, which signed deals worth some US$16 billion, to the US prior to his visit, as a gesture of goodwill.
When Hu first arrived in the US he took part in a conference in Seattle at which he attempted to allay US suspicions as to China's designs for the future, quoting Zheng Bijian (
In addition, on five occasions during the welcoming ceremony prior to the summit, and in the press conference after its conclusion, Hu mentioned mutual benefits with a win-win outcome. This is how he would like to color US-China relations, but his emphasis on it also betrayed the dissatisfaction he feels regarding those relations as they stand. He has publicly said that he wants to see mutual respect and equal treatment between the two countries, and also opened his address during the welcoming ceremony with a reference to the opening chapter of China-US trade relations, when US merchant ships arrived off the Chinese coast in 1784.
Hu declined to make any concrete promises on Bush's demands of reducing the trade deficit, letting the yuan appreciate against the US dollar and improving China's record on human rights and religious freedoms. Bush was able neither to improve his own domestic approval ratings nor alleviate pressure from Congress as a result of Hu's visit, and the pressure Hu exerted on Bush to "oppose" Taiwanese independence also came to no avail, with Hu having to settle for Bush reiterating that he "did not support" it. All of the above meant that there was little improvement in China-US relations, and that Hu failed to achieve his goals for the trip.
There was, however, a subtle shift in the relations between the two countries. The Bush administration has, on many occasions, asked Beijing to enter into talks with Taipei to reduce tension across the Taiwan Strait, ever since China passed its so-called "Anti-Secession" Law in March last year, a move the US regarded as a unilateral change to the status quo. All Beijing has done, however, is increase contact with the Taiwanese public and opposition parties, treating the government itself as a non-entity.
During this summit, Bush made no demands for the two sides to engage in dialogue: This is very likely the result of the recent trip to the US of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
With the Taiwanese government being marginalized by the US as well, it is unlikely that cross-strait relations will improve, but it is unlikely they will deteriorate, either. After this summit, Beijing knows that Bush's patience with Taipei has grown thin. During the recent meeting between Ma and President Chen Shui-bian (
With the US clearly not supporting Taiwanese independence, Beijing no longer concerned that the US will covertly support any moves to independence by the Chen government, and Chen himself powerless to make such moves, neither China, the US nor Taiwan are likely to change the situation in the Taiwan Strait. Now that both China and Washington have marginalized Taipei, the situation has become, in the short term, more stable.
Emerson Chang is director of the Department of International Studies at Nan Hua University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS