The summit meeting between US President George W. Bush and his Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin (
The favorable situation Taiwan has enjoyed over these two years, thanks to the goodwill shown by Bush officials, is nevertheless slowly eroding due to the changing international situation, Jiang's scrupulous handling and reckless actions on Taiwan's part.
If Taiwan still intends to tread on thin ice and bring up topics that Beijing finds irritating and Washington disapproves of, it will have the same effect as this time -- helping the US and China discard their divided opinions on the Taiwan issue and reach more consensus.
First, Jiang did not repeat the old tune of not ruling out the possibility of military attacks against Taiwan, nor did Bush reiterate that the US will do whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend itself.
This suggests that both sides had entered into an agreement not to bring up sensitive topics so as to create a more harmonious atmosphere.
It remains to be seen whether or not future US-Sino summits will follow this mode and even extend them to talks between officials from the two sides.
Second, the US administration, especially the US president, would only refer to the three communiques in the past when the "one China" policy was mentioned, and cite the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) when asked about its promise regarding Taiwan's security.
But in a joint press conference during the APEC summit, Bush, for the first time, placed the three communiques and the TRA under the "one China" framework.
He also emphasized that Taiwan and China must peacefully resolve their disagreements through dialogue.
From a strategic viewpoint, Bush apparently intended to use this new "one China" framework to give a formal and document-based connotation to "strategic clarity," a principle he put forth shortly after his inauguration.
This new principle of strategic clarity -- as long as Taiwan does not claim independence, China shall not resort to military assault -- restricts both Beijing's and Taipei's freedom to interpret unification or independence.
Third, different viewpoints on Taiwan independence were expressed among US officials over the past months. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz mentioned his opposition to Taiwan independence.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage mentioned "no support of Taiwan independence" and "not supporting Taiwan independence does not necessarily mean opposing independence."
But Bush's statement that "We do not support Taiwan independence" was the first time he formally expressed his stand on this issue.
Two parts pertaining to this problem are worthy of our observation. One, when asked by the press what concrete measures will be taken to realize the US promise in support of "one China," Bush said the "one China" principle means the problems between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be resolved peacefully.
He added that since the US is influential in this region, it plans to make sure that the problem is resolved peacefully, including non-US support for Taiwan independence.
Apparently, not supporting Taiwan independence is only one of the methods to peacefully resolve the cross-strait issue.
In addition to not resorting to military assault, China's government agencies should seek a further understanding of the feasibility of other methods, which might involve both sides or merely target Taiwan.
Two, US officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, have pledged that Bush would never repeat the "three no's" policies advanced by his predecessor Bill Clinton.
But now Bush himself has mentioned the first "no." Apart from changes in the international situation and Jiang's persistent efforts, the rash statement of "one country on each side [of the Strait]" put forth by President Chen Shui-bian (
Fourth, the Clinton administration developed strategic dialogue with China, and announced in 1998 that both sides were to move toward strategic partnership.
Prior to the presidential elections, Bush strenuously denied that the US and China were strategic partners and claimed that they are strategic competitors. But after he took the nation's helm, officials including Vice President Dick Cheney have avoided mentioning "strategic competitors." US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell even described China as a partner.
Before the summit was held, the US and China had reached an agreement to resume cross-strait dialogue, hold consultation talks on national defense and carry on security dialogue. Bush said during the press conference that the US is seeking to establish frank, constructive and cooperative relations with China, including conducting new dialogue on security issues.
The Bush government might not agree with the Xinhua News Agency report that the two nations have carried on high-level strategic dialogue. But it is an undeniable fact that the Bush administration has achieved more in the mutual dialogue and actual cooperative relations on anti-terrorism, arms control, non-proliferation, North Korea, Iraq and the strengthening of economic ties, than its predecessor.
Taipei cannot rule out the possibility of closed-door deals wrapped up in the Bush-Jiang meeting, which might gradually emerge as the two are resolving the problems regarding North Korea and attacks against Iraq. On the whole, Jiang has successfully achieved his goal of reversing the Bush government's tilt toward Taipei. Although Taipei cannot foil Jiang's efforts and is incapable of influencing the international situation, it should at least avoid assisting a rapprochement between Beijing and Washington.
Edward Chen is the director of the Graduate Institute of American Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS