Forum looks at the US' Taiwan security policy

A US security expert said yesterday US security policy regarding Taiwan has evolved dramatically over the past two years with the introduction of "strategic clarity" regarding US intentions should China attack Taiwan.

Retired Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, now director of the Center for Strategic Studies in the US, made the comment at the Asia-Pacific Security Forum hosted by the Institute for National Policy Research in Taipei.

The forum's topic was "Global Governance in the Light of New Security Developments."

McDevitt said US President George W. Bush's comment on television to do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself" was not a slip of the tongue, but a position advocated by both Bush, then a presidential candidate, and many of his senior advisors before the 2000 election.

"Strategic clarity is also involved in ensuring that Taipei un-derstands that a firm defense commitment if it was attacked did not give it a license to provoke Beijing and drag the US into conflict," McDevitt said.

But Christopher Hughes, director of the Asia Research Center at the London School of Economics, raised a question about the "strategic clarity" of US intentions if China attacks.

The US' stance on Taiwan's referendum issue has been very unclear, Hughes said, and China will expect more clarity on this issue when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) visits Washington.

Beijing views Taiwan's introduction of a referendum law as President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) attempt to provide a legal foundation for the country's independence, while the government here reiterated referendums are necessary steps toward a deeper democracy.

Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum Center of Strategic International Studies in Honolulu, said what the US intended to do regarding referendums is to stay out of Taiwan's politics, because it thinks any comments would probably be misinterpreted and used incorrectly by both China and Taiwan.

"That's smart politics. It's not a matter of ambiguity or clarity or anything else," Cossa said.

One of the most insightful things that was said, according to Cossa, was: "Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) used surprise as a strategy. Chen uses it as a tactic."

"I believe the US tried to change from strategic ambiguity about China-Taiwan to strategic clarity and making it very clear to Taiwan that we will help defend the nation. But we do not support independence. The problem is Taiwan only hears what it wants to hear," Cossa said.

Cossa said there has been the perception in Washington that Chen has been waving a red flag in front of Beijing, hoping to illicit the type of reaction that would spark a nationalist reaction in Taiwan that would gain him votes in the upcoming election.

"There are some risks involved in the current activity, which could result in the US concluding that Chen is becoming a troublemaker. That would not be in Taiwan's best interest," Cossa said.

David Brown, associate director of the Asian studies department at Johns Hopkins University, said the US needs to be clear with China that the use of force is unacceptable.

"Some people have tried to describe what the Bush administration is doing right now as dual clarity. It has been clear with China: `Don't use force.' They are trying to be clear with Taiwan: `Don't change things unilaterally,'" Brown said.