Both US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young have made recent comments on the cross-strait situation. Some of their comments were new, and they also contained some important messages from the administration of US President George W. Bush.
First, during a hearing in the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee, several pro-Taiwan representatives asked if the US decided not to permit President Chen Shui-bian (
To give Congress a clear picture of the administration's position, Zoellick used stronger words than he has in the past, saying that the arrangement for Chen's transit was decided by Washington itself.
"We make our own decisions," Zoellick said. In response to repeated questioning, he emphasized that keeping one's promises is the most important thing in both politics and diplomacy, hinting that the US did not allow Chen to transit through New York in order to make him pay for past words and deeds.
Zoellick also pointed out that it is a good thing for the US to demand that foreign leaders take responsibility for their promises. Since "honesty is the best policy" is a value deeply rooted in the US psyche, his blunt remarks touched many of the Congressional representatives.
When Taiwan eventually mends its relations with the US, it should never again take advantage of representatives' goodwill toward our country.
Next, as the key US figure responsible for China policy, Zoellick also pointed out that the US will not support Taiwan independence; nor will it dance to the tune of Taiwan's politicians. "Because let me be very clear: Independence means war ... There are big stakes here, where lives can be lost," he said. On the same day, during a speech at the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, Young said that Zoellick is opposed to Taiwan independence.
However, Young later corrected his remarks, saying that he should have said "we don't support" Taiwan independence.
Moreover, Zoellick said that "I think [Taiwan] is going to keep hitting into a wall" if it repeatedly attempts to challenge the US "one China" policy. Obviously, his words were more straightforward than those of former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, who complained in 2004 that Taiwan is probably the biggest "landmine" in Sino-US relations.
Zoellick's testimony shows that the US will watch Taiwan's every move closely in the next two years. In his speech, Young deliberately echoed Zoellick's comments, stressing that Taiwan must handle the amendment of its Constitution with caution and without touching on Taiwan independence, lest it arouse US concern.
Bush's move to directly handle Chen's transit issue has echoes of US Vice President Dick Cheney's China visit in April 2004, when Cheney intimated for the first time that the US and China have a consensus on preventing Taiwanese independence.
This consensus was extended during the recent meeting between Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), so that now high-ranking officials in the US administration, including Bush himself, will directly intervene at crucial points in the cross-strait relationship.
Zoellick bluntly pointed out that it is important for the US in its diplomatic policies to make sure that Taiwanese officials take responsibility for their promises, and that they must clarify any ambiguities. Clearly, Zoellick was referring to Chen's political promises: the "four noes and one not" (
Zoellick also pointed out that when certain Taiwanese politicians decide to renege on their promises by withdrawing from their original stance, or when they push the political envelope, the US government will respond with some kind of bilateral initiative, although without compromising its basic respect for Taiwan.
Zoellick's statement is strong for diplomatic language. The underlying meaning is that once Chen breaks a promise, the US will use its own way of putting heavy pressure on him and will not allow him to cross the US' line of tolerance.
Further, while Zoellick emphasized that Washington will suppress any moves toward Taiwan independence, Young also made plain his view that Washington is in favor of cross-strait direct links.
In his speech, Young said that the US is happy to see cross-strait economic and trade links being discussed through democratic means and transformed into policy. This is one of the least ambiguous statements to date of the US' stance on the issue of direct links.
Many people believe that the current stalemate between Taiwan and China on direct cross-strait links is in the US' best interest. This belief is in fact a myth. During her trip to Beijing in July 2004, then US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed the US' adherence to the "one-China" policy and urged the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to engage in genuine government-to-government dialogue.
Since former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) visits to China last year, the Bush administration has said that it welcomes dialogue, but that the Chinese leadership should also engage in direct dialogue with Taiwan's elected leaders.
Because the US has never made a clear public statement showing that it supports talks on direct cross-strait links, President Chen has procrastinated on this issue.
In his New Year's message, Chen even attempted to offer a policy of "active management and effective opening" and temporarily put the issue of direct links aside.
But given the contrast between the US welcome accorded KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in March and its refusal to grant President Chen a transit stop in New York, Chen has been forced to give Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) the task of formulating a new policy on cross-strait transportation links.
Zoellick's talk of independence meaning war is a warning to Taiwan not to take any rash action. Young's talk of the benefits of direct cross-strait links indicates that the legislative push to establish these links has US support. The government needs to listen to both messages.
Edward Chen is a professor in the Graduate Institute of American Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Eddy Chang and Lin Ya-ti
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
RSS