White paper experts clash

Analysts are divided over whether China's white paper threatening attack if Taiwan "indefinitely" delays reunification is the beginning of Beijing's endgame, or merely a clarification of Beijing's bottom line.

Representing the more hawkish sentiments in Washington, military analyst Richard Fisher, a senior fellow with the think tank Jamestown Foundation, told the Taipei Times he believed Beijing's issuance of the white paper was a very significant step toward declaring a deadline for reunification.

"Although the deadline has not been spelled out clearly, the subtle implication of the paper is that Taiwan's next president will be given a deadline for reunification under Beijing's terms," Fisher said.

"China would probably announce a deadline if not in the next diplomatic crisis, then in the one after that," he added.

A recent article in the South China Morning Post has speculated the deadline could be between 2007 and 2020.

However, a former Chinese official once involved in cross-strait negotiations strongly rejected this idea.

"I have never heard of such a deadline," said Zhang Jialin (章嘉林), former secretary to Beijing's top cross-strait negotiator Wang Doahan (汪道涵).

"The policy paper did not imply a deadline. It's a message and policy clarification to Taiwan voters and candidates," Zhang said in a matter-of-fact tone.

The message is: If Taiwan drags on reunification indefinitely, it is equivalent to declaring independence.

Zhang said that twice in 1995 just prior to President Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) trip to Cornell University and last year before his redefinition of cross-strait relations as "special state-to-state" in nature, it appeared that cross-strait negotiations were going to make significant progress with a visit to Taiwan scheduled by Wang. That Lee's actions derailed Wang's trip not once but twice, was interpreted in Beijing as proof of Taiwan's unwillingness to seriously engage in cross-strait negotiation.

Zhang told the Taipei Times that a return to the "one China" principle was fundamental to the reopening of talks.

"As long as both sides return to the principle of `one-China,' we can talk about anything," he said, adding that Beijing had not clearly defined in the white paper what `one-China' was.

Taiwan wants a return to a flexible interpretation of "one China" that the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) claims was agreed to in 1992.

The MAC now says that "state-to-state" is its interpretation of "one China."

Beijing officially claims the lack of any formal written agreement to disagree on the meaning of "one China" shows that such an understanding was never reached.

Zhang himself calls the issue "clouded," adding the best reference for interpretation was Wang's definition last year in which he said there is only one China in the world, but both sides have yet to determine what that is.

"I think there is still room for `one-China,' I don't think cross-strait relations have deteriorated to the level where it's irreparable," Zhang said.

Both analysts, however, agreed that it would be difficult to determine which of the three major presidential candidates would be best poised to handle cross-strait affairs, as all three had offered moderate China policies and said they were willing to engage in dialogue with Beijing.

"What's said before an election and what is done afterward is different," Zhang said, adding that US President Ronald Reagan had threatened to switch diplomatic recognition back to Taiwan in his campaign but allied with China after his election.