Sat, Sep 08, 2007 page3

• ANALYSIS: Washington kowtowing to Beijing, experts say

  SOVEREIGNTY The Bush administration's changing `strategic requirements' of China against the backdrop of its Iraq dilemma has led to an about-face in its Taiwan policy

  • AFP
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  US President George W. Bush's administration appears to have made a radical shift in its Taiwan policy which some experts see as a miscalculation and kowtowing to China.

  The move comes in the wake of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) persistence in wanting to hold a referendum on whether to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan."

  It has been longstanding US policy to very deliberately take no position on the matter of sovereignty over Taiwan, but the Bush administration broke that tradition by announcing last week that Taiwan is not a state.

  "Membership in the United Nations requires statehood. Taiwan, or the Republic of China [ROC], is not at this point a state in the international community," Dennis Wilder, a senior Bush aide, said last Friday.

  The statement drew fury in Taipei, where dozens of protesters burned and trampled the Stars and Stripes outside the American Institute in Taiwan.

  It also came as a surprise to many US experts on Taiwan, which is regarded as almost a state under US domestic law -- the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides a security umbrella for Taiwan.

  "My view is that this is a complete about-face from 50 years of American policy [of not making] that statement," said John Tkacik, an ex-State Department expert on China.

  "It may have been inattention or carelessness, or even a deliberate decision by the Bush administration that now China is such a global partner that we need to appease its demands in changing that policy," he said.

  There is some US perception that Chen is using the referendum issue for his personal political ends, but experts say this could be a misunderstanding or mere ignorance.

  "For the US side, we need to recognize the issue of identity in Taiwan is not a political game, it's not a tactical move in Taipei, it's a very fundamental issue, not at all unique to its 23 million people," said Michael Green, Bush's former top Asian aide.

  "Look at Korea, Japan, the national identity is at the top of the agenda in every country in Asia and there is no reason why Taiwan should be any different," he said.

  Bush came into the White House in 2001 with a strong policy on Taiwan, which he wanted to use as an effective symbol of democracy for Asia, particularly China. But Taiwan gave greater emphasis to its sovereignty.

  Bush aides criticized the predecessor Clinton administration for pursuing a wishy-washy policy on Taiwan and wanted what they called strategic clarity on the issue so that China understood where US defense commitment was, experts said.

  But 18 months after coming to power, the Bush administration began rolling back that commitment, completely reassessing its "strategic requirements" of China in the light of an impending Iraq invasion, they said.

  Washington later came to rely on China to help end North Korea's nuclear weapons drive and the devastating crisis in Sudan's western region of Darfur and to gain its support to isolate Iran over its defiant nuclear program.

  "It may well be that Asia sees America's new indulgence of China as an American acknowledgement that China is the new pre-eminent power in Asia," Tkacik said.

  But he warned, "the Chinese are very capable of making a case for their sovereign right to use force against Taiwan, and the Bush administration appears to be acquiescing towards that position."

  In fact, some experts said, the US State Department had expressed concern that Chen's referendum drive was dangerously setting the initial ground for military intervention from China.

  Beijing in 2005 rebuffed international criticism and incorporated in an "Anti-Secession" Law its right to declare war and reunify Taiwan by force if Taipei formally declared independence.

  "There are people who are worried about a Chinese military reaction and the US always has to take that seriously and always has to signal to Beijing that we object to unilateral change in the status quo by either side and that our position is very firm," Green said.

  "It would be dangerous, however, to let Beijing seize the momentum and rattle the saber or threaten military force and use that to try to get the US side to jump and react," he added.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Xi, Trump differ on outcome of talks

  • 2

    Takaichi vows ‘golden age’ of ties with the US

  • 3

    Coast guard launches two patrol vessels

  • 4

    Taiwan unveils undersea cable security initiative

  • 5

    EDITORIAL: Nvidia holdup puts growth at risk