President Bush is currently meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin at his ranch in Crawford, TX. So today, President Bush announced that he does not support independence for Taiwan. While it hasn’t been US policy to support Taiwanese independence in the past, and Bush never said he did, this seems to me to be a sharp ideological shift in the Administration’s beliefs re Taiwan. For instance, in April of last year, Bush pledged to help Taiwan defend itself. This included the possible use of American forces in case of a Chinese invasion, in addition to ongoing arms sales to Taiwan. Bush espoused the same general ideas about Taiwan during his campaign:
Of course, the main issue Bush and Jiang are meeting about is Iraq, as the Administration seeks to secure a vote in the UN Security Counsel in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it does not comply with all outstanding UNSC resolutions. China has veto power, so Bush obviously needs China’s support to go to war with Iraq, which has traded a great deal with China in recent years. So, did Bush sell out an American commitment to Taiwan (which, FWIW, has been heavily favored by the Republicans) in order to get China’s vote on the Iraq resolution? Was there ever a real commitment to Taiwan? Should there be? What is more important, both long-term and short term, as an American foreign policy goal: the ouster of Saddam Hussein, or the protection of a democratically governed Taiwan?
It has consistently been the overt American policy not to support independence for Tawain, throughout all Administrations, regardless of ideological stripe, for the past 50+ years.
The U.S., again throughout all Administrations of varying ideological stripe, has always distinguished between the issue of independence for Tawain and its position that the issue of Tawain should not be resolved by force.
BTW, there is not American “commitment” to Taiwan. Yet another consistent American position is that it has never overtly said how it would response to a mainland attack on Taiwan. To keep the mainlanders from getting violent while at the same time keeping the Taiwanese from getting too cocky, the U.S. has remained studiously ambiguous on this issue.
IOW, Bush had repeated U.S. policy of the past 50 years. The mainlanders love hearing the U.S. President reaffirm that the U.S. does not support Taiwanese independence, and several presidents have so stated when we wanted something else from China. If they want the bone, toss it to them - it’s kinda of like when you realize that your SO wants you to tell him/her that you love him/her. It was true the moment before you said it, but it makes him/her feel better.
Gotta agree with Sua here. The actual policy hasn’t changed, and don’t believe for a second that the US wouldn’t respond to military threats by sending an aircraft carrier over there a la Clinton. Just something that the Chinese like to hear, so you tell it to them. I’m sure that the Chinese leadership is under no illusions as to what the actual American position is on Taiwan.
It’s real politik. Personally, I doubt if China really wants to take Taiwan back by force. Why would it when they can wait ten years until the economies are even further integrated? It’s a good chimera to take focus off of domestic issues or to play the nationalism card.
Bush has had a few hiccups, IIRC on Good Morning America he made a few ambiguous sentences regarding Taiwan, which were immediately followed up with GWB’s handlers backtracking to the official line Sua so kindly spelled out.
So just as long as Taiwan doesn’t explicitly declare independence–something they weren’t going to do anyway–it looks to me as if nothing has really changed.
BTW, the oft-touted “one One China” policy on the part of the US “acknowledges that Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.” But what if it turned out that Chinese on the Taiwan side of the Strait made it clear that they don’t buy into this idea, through a mechanism such as an islandwide referendum? Would this prompt the US to junk yet another holdover from the Cold War, as it did the ABM treaty?