Clinton administration officials once again have their tongues firmly planted on Beijing's boot. The latest occasion for unnecessarily appeasing the Chinese government was a stopover in Los Angeles by Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian (
Since Beijing insists that the ROC ceased to exist following the communist revolution in 1949, and that Taiwan is nothing more than a rebellious province, Chinese leaders lodged a shrill diplomatic protest concerning Chen's presence in Los Angeles.
Instead of dismissing Beijing's protest, the Clinton administration went out of its way to be accommodating. While declining to bar Chen from landing at Los Angeles International Airport, administration officials hastened to assure the Chinese government that Chen was making only a "brief" transit stop and that he would hold no meetings or conduct any public activities while on US soil. In reality, Chen planned to stay overnight in Los Angeles, and a California businessman hoped to give a reception in his honor. Several journalists -- and even some members of Congress -- also asked to meet with Chen.
The State Department did everything possible to prevent such interaction. Indeed, its conduct was so intrusive that Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-California) accused the Department of attempting to "quarantine" Chen and deny him the right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
The administration's conduct was disgraceful but not surprising. It was reminiscent of the policy adopted more than five years ago when then President Lee Teng-hui (
The proper response to Beijing's attempts to block the visits of Lee and Chen would have been a firm rebuff. Indeed, the episodes created an opportunity to throw a favorite objection of PRC officials back in their faces. The Beijing government habitually responds to US protests about its egregious human rights record by denouncing "interference in China's internal affairs." Yet Chinese leaders don't hesitate to try to dictate America's visa policy or decide whether a traveler in transit can set foot on US soil.
US officials should have told their Chinese counterparts that such matters are none of Beijing's business. The Chinese regime would have a legitimate objection if -- and only if -- executive branch policymakers held official meetings with a Taiwanese leader. Otherwise, any resident of Taiwan should be able to visit the US, speak at public gatherings, give interviews to journalists and even meet with members of Congress without interference. If Beijing doesn't like such manifestations of a free society, too bad.
The administration's excessively deferential behavior toward China not only betrays important American values, it is potentially dangerous. Chinese leaders are impressed with quiet displays of strength and pride; they have justifiable contempt for fawning behavior. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has all too often engaged in the latter.
In addition to its campaign of diplomatic appeasement regarding the Lee and Chen visits, the administration performed poorly in May 1999 in responding to attacks on the US embassy in Beijing following NATO's inadvertent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. It was certainly appropriate for Washington to apologize -- once -- for the bombing and to offer generous compensation to the victims and their families. It was troubling, though, to see US officials apologizing to China again and again, and again.
Even worse, the administration responded to the violent, week-long attacks on the US embassy and the US ambassa-dor's residence -- clearly conducted with the connivance of the Beijing regime -- with nothing more than anemic diplomatic protests. The proper response would have been to recall Ambassador James Sasser (who was scheduled to retire in any case) and, more important, announce that the appointment of his successor would be delayed until Beijing apologized and gave explicit assurances that it would provide appropriate protection for embassy property in the future. Other contacts between the two governments should have been curtailed as well to show Washington's displeasure.
Such actions would have made it clear to Beijing that the US was not about to be bullied and intimidated. Unfortunately, the administration's actions conveyed precisely the opposite message. Few people would dispute that it is important for the US to maintain a cordial relationship with China. But there is a big difference between that goal and having US officials abase themselves when China's rulers make outrageous demands or engage in outrageous conduct. The Clinton administration seems incapable of grasping that distinction.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS