Tue, Sep 07, 1999 page8

• Sino-US relations hinge on issue of apology

  • Ralph A. Cossa
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  When the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders' meeting convenes in Auckland next week, most eyes will be focused on US President Bill Clinton and Chinese President Jiang Zemin (江澤民). The stage seems set for yet another rapprochement in the perennial up-and-down relationship between the two countries. At the top of their agenda will be the WTO and "one China" issues.

  But, if both leaders truly want to get the troubled relationship back on track, they must also come to terms with the festering sore inflicted by the accidental US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade last May.

  Most observers are predicting that the two presidents will give the go-ahead to proceed on WTO, largely along the lines of Premier Zhu Rongji's (朱鎔基) earlier offer, which had been (unwisely) rejected by Clinton during Zhu's visit to Washington this past spring.

  Washington has made it clear that Clinton cannot accept less than Zhu originally offered and Beijing has made it equally clear that Jiang will not offer more. Spin doctors on both sides will have a field day explaining how they can get with a better deal this time.

  Jiang will also be seeking yet another clear pronouncement of American commitment to a "one China" policy in the wake of Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations" comment in early July.

  Prudence dictates some caution here.

  Clinton has already reaffirmed America's commitment to "one China" in more specific terms than any of his predecessors. He cannot afford to be seen as kowtowing to Jiang on this issue, especially since Jiang will no doubt continue to stress Beijing's "right" to use force if necessary against Taiwan.

  Hopefully, Mr. Clinton will seize the opportunity to send a strong signal to the leaders on both sides of the Taiwan Strait that America will not support, recognize or tolerate any unilateral change to the status quo, be it via diplomatic/political means (by Taiwan) or through military force (by China).

  While Lee has not retracted his remarks, he has backed down considerably, clarifying officially that "special state-to-state" does not equal "two states" and that no cons-titutional change is in the works.

  Meanwhile, Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起), who created the largest stir when he implied that Lee's comments signaled an end to the "one China" policy, has now been quoted as saying that "we have never deviated from the framework of `one China,' with each side being entitled to its respective interpretation."

  It's time for Jiang to declare victory on this issue and not press for more retractions from Taipei, since more concessions are not likely and continued overt pressure will likely work against Beijing's long-term interests.

  The real test of whether both sides truly desire to get Sino-US relations back on track will hinge on how the Belgrade bombing incident is handled. Chinese officials and scholars tell me that Beijing is hoping for one final apology from Clinton -- this time delivered in person -- in order to allow both sides to "put the issue behind us."

  But delivering an apology is only half the issue; the bigger question is the manner in which Jiang responds -- as Japanese leaders from the Emperor on down can attest, China is much better at demanding apologies than at accepting them.

  To my knowledge, neither Jiang nor any other senior Chinese leader has ever used the word "accidental" in any statement referring to the bombing. While Jiang may not have personally accused the US of "Hitler-like atrocities," he has certainly allowed the deliberate-bombing myth to continue. There should be no further US apology without some clear statement by Jiang in return that he accepts Clinton's assurances that the bombing was not a deliberate act.

  It would also be useful for Clinton to provide Jiang with a copy of his own personal statements regarding China in recent months, all of which underscore America's desire to get relations back on track. He should then explain to his Chinese counterpart that Jiang's own statements, including his most recent comments in Bangkok about American "gunboat diplomacy" and "economic colonialism," could lead one to believe that it is China that is not sincere about improving relations.

  The Belgrade bombing dealt a severe blow to American credibility in China and government acquiescence if not outright support for conspiracy theorists has helped to foster ill will against the US among the Chinese people.

  If this is the intent of China's leaders, then we must recognize that the basis for future cooperation among our two nations no longer exists. On the other hand, if Jiang is sincere in his desire to rebuild a solid, trusting relationship between China and the US, he must meet Clinton halfway and acknowledge the Belgrade bombing for what it was -- a most unfortunate, tragic mistake.

  Ralph A. Cossa is executive director of the Pacific Forum CSIS in Honolulu.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Palmeiras hopes for club cup win

  • 2

    US to deliver 10 new F-16s, source says

  • 3

    Taiwan blacklists Huawei and SMIC

  • 4

    Ma Ying-jeou’s forum speech regrettable, MAC says

  • 5

    Barring of Chinese officials justified, MAC says