Taiwan is 'hostage' to Washington-Beijing ties

By Edward Neilan
Special to World Tribune.com

TOKYO--At the end of the day, after all the tea has been sipped and all the rituals of policy have been presented, the fact remains that the future of the Republic of China on Taiwan is a "hostage" to the flow of relations between the United States and China.

Credit is due the emissaries of Taipei and Beijing---respectively billionaire Kuomintang Party (KMT) insider Koo Chen-fu, former Shanghai Mayor Wang Daohan, with a cameo appearance by another former Shanghai Mayor who is now President of China, Jiang Zemin--- for holding their meetings October 14-19 in Shanghai and Beijing in an atmosphere of civility.

(The contrast seen by Asia hands was sharp in comparison to the Korean situation. China and Korea have both been divided for five decades but high-level representatives of Seoul and Pyongyang have never met on such terms of cordiality and free conversation.)

The empty, invisible chair at the recent Taiwan-China talks belonged to the United States.

Washington, as it turns out, painted itself into a corner back in 1972 by signing the Shanghai Communique, agreeing that there was one China and Taiwan was part of that one China. The mainland, of course, regards Taiwan as a renegade province that has not accepted the 1949 Communist victory over the Nationalists.

The ambiguities of the communique have served the U.S. fairly well for a number of years. But the problem is that the identities of mainland China and Taiwan have changed greatly since 1972.

And so has the identity of the U.S.

Efforts to keep ahead of the changes, like the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, have been inadequate.

For one thing, Taiwan now has a feisty opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which gives Taiwan residents an alternative to the once-rigid, now more democratic KMT.

For years the U.S. encouraged Taiwan to be "more democratic" in domestic politics, and the 21 million citizens of the former Japanese colony proved to be good students not only of that study but also of something called "market economics."

But Washington fears that if Taiwan carries democratization to its utmost and the DPP unseats the KMT and declares "independence," this would antagonize China.

DPP Legislator Parris Chang told me recently "Since the DPP has already affirmed that it need not reiterate Taiwan's sovereignty and that the party is ready to improve bilateral relations with China on a host of issues, then what is it that really worries U.S. officials? Perhaps it is Washington's own inability to engage China on democratic Taiwan's right to exist."

Earlier this year, several ranking former Clinton administration officials visited Taiwan, urging Taipei to refrain from "antagonizing" China.

Joseph Nye, former assistant secretary of defense; Anthony Lake, former national security adviser, and William Perry, former secretary of defense all revealed apprehension that a future DPP-led government in Taiwan advocating independence would anger Beijing.

The further implied message was that the U.S., prior to the mid-summer 1998 visit to China by President Clinton, wanted everything to go smoothly. This would mean more Boeing sales, improved trade ties, and downgrading human rights emphasis.

But as has become his trademark, Clinton went too far. He kowtowed to the Chinese in accepting a "three nos" statement from Jiang. The statement amounted to saying that Taiwan would get no more U.S. support if it declares independence.

As even The Washington Post felt obliged to sum up: "In classic Clinton fashion, the White House tries to have things both ways, denying that U.S. policy has changed, when in fact it has, and not for the better. Clinton has sided with the dictators against the democrats. To pretend this is no change only heightens the offense."

Congress later overruled Clinton with resounding resolutions.

Reality looks to Washington for a final solution; a lasting, informed though subtle stance that will allow Chinese on both sides of the Strait to believe they have decided for themselves.

The U.S. was scarcely mentioned at the two-China summit. But both Beijing and Taipei, while insisting they are making their own decisions, have been lobbying the U.S. for all they are worth.

Anyone who believes either side will soon change its policy tune is mistaken. "Retaking Taiwan" is indelible doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a primary goal of the People's Liberation Army and of the Chinese Navy.

Taiwan is just as steadfast in resisting any kind of reunification until China shows some steps toward democratization.

It will be interesting to see if President Jiang, whose postponed September trip to Japan has been rescheduled for November, will be successful in getting Tokyo to make its own policy less ambiguous and make statements further isolating Taiwan.