Both US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young have made recent comments on the cross-strait situation. Some of their comments were new, and they also contained some important messages from the administration of US President George W. Bush.
First, during a hearing in the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee, several pro-Taiwan representatives asked if the US decided not to permit President Chen Shui-bian (
To give Congress a clear picture of the administration's position, Zoellick used stronger words than he has in the past, saying that the arrangement for Chen's transit was decided by Washington itself.
"We make our own decisions," Zoellick said. In response to repeated questioning, he emphasized that keeping one's promises is the most important thing in both politics and diplomacy, hinting that the US did not allow Chen to transit through New York in order to make him pay for past words and deeds.
Zoellick also pointed out that it is a good thing for the US to demand that foreign leaders take responsibility for their promises. Since "honesty is the best policy" is a value deeply rooted in the US psyche, his blunt remarks touched many of the Congressional representatives.
When Taiwan eventually mends its relations with the US, it should never again take advantage of representatives' goodwill toward our country.
Next, as the key US figure responsible for China policy, Zoellick also pointed out that the US will not support Taiwan independence; nor will it dance to the tune of Taiwan's politicians. "Because let me be very clear: Independence means war ... There are big stakes here, where lives can be lost," he said. On the same day, during a speech at the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, Young said that Zoellick is opposed to Taiwan independence.
However, Young later corrected his remarks, saying that he should have said "we don't support" Taiwan independence.
Moreover, Zoellick said that "I think [Taiwan] is going to keep hitting into a wall" if it repeatedly attempts to challenge the US "one China" policy. Obviously, his words were more straightforward than those of former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, who complained in 2004 that Taiwan is probably the biggest "landmine" in Sino-US relations.
Zoellick's testimony shows that the US will watch Taiwan's every move closely in the next two years. In his speech, Young deliberately echoed Zoellick's comments, stressing that Taiwan must handle the amendment of its Constitution with caution and without touching on Taiwan independence, lest it arouse US concern.
Bush's move to directly handle Chen's transit issue has echoes of US Vice President Dick Cheney's China visit in April 2004, when Cheney intimated for the first time that the US and China have a consensus on preventing Taiwanese independence.
This consensus was extended during the recent meeting between Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), so that now high-ranking officials in the US administration, including Bush himself, will directly intervene at crucial points in the cross-strait relationship.
Zoellick bluntly pointed out that it is important for the US in its diplomatic policies to make sure that Taiwanese officials take responsibility for their promises, and that they must clarify any ambiguities. Clearly, Zoellick was referring to Chen's political promises: the "four noes and one not" (
Zoellick also pointed out that when certain Taiwanese politicians decide to renege on their promises by withdrawing from their original stance, or when they push the political envelope, the US government will respond with some kind of bilateral initiative, although without compromising its basic respect for Taiwan.
Zoellick's statement is strong for diplomatic language. The underlying meaning is that once Chen breaks a promise, the US will use its own way of putting heavy pressure on him and will not allow him to cross the US' line of tolerance.
Further, while Zoellick emphasized that Washington will suppress any moves toward Taiwan independence, Young also made plain his view that Washington is in favor of cross-strait direct links.
In his speech, Young said that the US is happy to see cross-strait economic and trade links being discussed through democratic means and transformed into policy. This is one of the least ambiguous statements to date of the US' stance on the issue of direct links.
Many people believe that the current stalemate between Taiwan and China on direct cross-strait links is in the US' best interest. This belief is in fact a myth. During her trip to Beijing in July 2004, then US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed the US' adherence to the "one-China" policy and urged the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to engage in genuine government-to-government dialogue.
Since former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) visits to China last year, the Bush administration has said that it welcomes dialogue, but that the Chinese leadership should also engage in direct dialogue with Taiwan's elected leaders.
Because the US has never made a clear public statement showing that it supports talks on direct cross-strait links, President Chen has procrastinated on this issue.
In his New Year's message, Chen even attempted to offer a policy of "active management and effective opening" and temporarily put the issue of direct links aside.
But given the contrast between the US welcome accorded KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in March and its refusal to grant President Chen a transit stop in New York, Chen has been forced to give Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) the task of formulating a new policy on cross-strait transportation links.
Zoellick's talk of independence meaning war is a warning to Taiwan not to take any rash action. Young's talk of the benefits of direct cross-strait links indicates that the legislative push to establish these links has US support. The government needs to listen to both messages.
Edward Chen is a professor in the Graduate Institute of American Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Eddy Chang and Lin Ya-ti
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
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
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