A U.S. blast at Taiwan

Rarely do diplomats resort to such blunt language as a senior U.S. diplomat used on Taiwan this week.

The tone of his message was: We’ve tried to tell you in private. You ignored us. NOW LISTEN UP! Your scheme to hold a referendum next year that would change the name of your island is idiotic and dangerous.

The referendum will only stir up trouble. Not just for you, but also for us. Stop now.

Even with that forceful message, my bet is that Taiwan won’t desist. Trouble lies ahead in the Strait. And the U.S. may get dragged into it.

The messenger was Thomas J. Christensen, deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asia, and the forum was a gathering in Annapolis, Maryland, of senior U.S. and Taiwanese officials, military officers and scholars. In other words, people who count.

Christensen said at the outset that the Bush administration wants to see a strong and moderate Taiwan, but that the island must recognize that it’s in a tight spot where a misstep could spark China into military action. I've boldfaced to make skimming easier. Full text available here.

“As much as we oppose Beijing’s threat to use force, we also take it seriously, and Taipei cannot afford to do otherwise. It is for this reason that Taiwan’s security is inextricably linked to the avoidance of needlessly provocative behavior. This does not mean that Taipei should or can be passive in the face of PRC pressure. But it means that responsible leadership in Taipei has to anticipate potential Chinese red lines and reactions and avoid unnecessary and unproductive provocations,” he said.

Christensen said holding a referendum on whether Taiwan should apply to join the United Nations under the name “Taiwan,” rather than the traditional but archaic “Republic of China,” makes no sense other than for “domestic political posturing.”

Far as I can tell, that makes sense. Everyone knows that Taiwanese would dearly like to become part of the United Nations. Everyone also knows that won’t happen as long as China holds veto power in the Security Council.

Christensen then gets to the nub: Taiwanese leader Chen Shui-bian is using the referendum to needlessly jab a stick in the eye of China. He’s doing it partly to win political points at home.

“What worries us, very specifically, is the issue of name change. This draft referendum raises the question of what Taiwan should be called in the international community. Moreover, it does so in what could be interpreted by many to be a legally-binding popular vote. In an ideal world, we would not have to worry about this. In the vernacular, we all speak of “Taiwan.” The State Department does, people in Taiwan do, even Beijing does. So why worry about using the same word in this more formal political and legal context? The simple reality is that, in the world of cross-Strait relations, political symbolism matters, and disagreements over it could be the source of major tensions or even conflict,” he said.

He accused Taiwan of trying to change the status quo, which both China and Taiwan have agreed to respect, and by doing so ignoring “the security interests of Taiwan’s most steadfast friend” – the United States.

He blasted Chen for describing Taiwan as already independent, and said that assertion, along with the referendum, amount to “needless provocations that are patently not in the best interests of the Taiwan people or of the United States.”

Boy, if the U.S. point man talks like that in public, imagine how blunt he is in private.

Since my posts about Taiwan bring a lot of responses, may I make a polite request? A lot of you are smart people on different sides of this issue. Let’s start postings from the presumption that Taiwan goes ahead with the referendum. What happens next? How might the Olympics constrain China? How can the United States avoid spilling blood over this?

Comments

[Michael Turton]

Let's first note a few things:

1. China holds a veto in the Security Council. Therefore, any entry by Taiwan would be a useless gesture. Therefore this whole controversy is much ado about nada.

2. China has acquired control over US Taiwan policy by the simply tactic of "being provoked." By "being provoked" and getting State to do China's dirty work, Beijing's fascist, authoritarian, expansionist government gets to appear moderate, patient, even statesmanlike. People forget -- and its important -- that for Beijing, "being provoked" is a policy choice it uses against certain actors in Taiwan.

3. The State Department has never challenged China's military expansion, or its cooperation with the KMT and the Blue parties in Taiwan, or its suppression of Taiwan's international space, or its other anti-Taiwan moves as violations of the Status Quo. State weakly attacked the Anti-secession law -- which declared Beijing's intent to murder Taiwanese -- as "unhelpful" -- exactly the same words it used about the DPP's "name rectification" program in Taiwan.

4. This article is more interesting as a document giving insight into State's own skewed vision of itself is Taiwan's protector, rather than as policy statement. The reality is that hardly any of us observing State from the outside would describe it as the main protector of Taiwan in the the US government. Most outsiders would find that a highly amusing presumption. For example, if you click on Taiwan on the State Website, you will find that it is part of China. A couple of months ago, China complained that Chen's appearance by teleconference at the National Press Club was a violation of the One China policy. The National Press Club laughed at their presumptions, and they stopped bothering them. But then the State Department took the exact same position -- that pixels containing an image of Chen Shui-bian were a violation of the Status Quo. Because State faithfully follows where Beijing leads, Taipei has learned to discount what it says. If State would maintain a studied silence from time to time.....

4. State repeatedly claims that Chen has "broken his promises" although Chen's promises were contingent on good faith actions on China's part, as the very first line of that statement makes clear. State simple refuses to acknowledge the problem Taiwan faces.

In sum, what's interesting is that it shows that both State and Taipei have weirdly skewed visions of their own behavior, resulting in a complete breakdown of communications. Taipei simply will not listen because it has its own domestic concerns, and because it doesn't believe the US. For all that State kvetches about the DPP, it has never actually done anything public and brutal to Taiwan. Sitting in Taipei, the DPP hears talk, but no action. And if there is any culture where talk is cheap, it's Chinese culture.

That said, as I noted on my blog this week:

"At the same time, Taipei, and analysts within the island, don't seem to get that there is a crisis in its support in Washington. This is partly because in Chinese culture what is said counts for little (and so what Washington says is discounted), and partly because Taiwan is so totally insular (a friend of mine once called it "a nation with the heart of a province") but is also partly the indirect result of the State Department's noisemaking. Whenever State hacks on Taiwan, a mob of Taiwan supporters outside the government rush to the island's aid: old Taiwan hands, longtime supporters, Congressmen, and organizations interested in Taiwan, Asia and human rights. This gives Taipei the reassuring illusion that it has broad support in the US, which in turn makes Taipei think that this means something as far as the administration is concerned. It doesn't. Somehow Taipei needs to get that message, and soon."

State's position is hard to figure. Obviously it invites China to attack Taiwan, by saying Taipei is violating the Status Quo. The question is why it would do such a thing. Is it really as cluelessly unaware of its own actions as it appears to be? State wants to see the KMT win, but putting pressure on the locals in this way will ensure that the DPP gets more votes.....so why are they engaging in these apparently counterproductive strategies?

Let’s start postings from the presumption that Taiwan goes ahead with the referendum. What happens next? How might the Olympics constrain China? How can the United States avoid spilling blood over this?

First, there isn't going to be any blood spilled over this. In the end, the referendums will be held, Hsieh will win the election, and nothing will have happened. The correct move for the DPP and the KMT, which I suspect they will do, is jointly hold a watered down version of the referendum that doesn't mention "Taiwan," that everyone can live with. The DPP will decide at some point that they have made their point, and tone the whole thing down. Look for this to occur as the run up to the election begins and the DPP engages in other get-out-the-base activities.

The interesting thing now is how successful this move has been. The UN referendum thing now dominates discourse here, and the KMT, whose political skills were formed in the days when they could shoot people, is once again dancing to the DPP tune. The pro-China parties simply have no positive vision of the future, and thus can only react to what the DPP proposes. And of course, the whole world is talking about Taiwan's status.

Another thing that fascinates me is that State objects to formal use of the word "Taiwan" to describe The Beautiful Isle. Much merriment! For everything State does connected with Taiwan is called "Taiwan" formerly -- the Taiwan Relations Act, the American institute in Taiwan, etc. If State is serious about this, why is the brand "Taiwan" constantly used in all formal State Department discourse?

Clearly Taipei needs to get to work and give a little to Washington. Clearly State needs to stop strangling US-Taiwan relations -- it has been clamping down on high-level visits for about five years now. Because at the moment, the only thing we're hearing above all this noise is the loud laughter emanating from Beijing.

Michael

[Michael Turton]

connected with Taiwan is called "Taiwan" formerly -- the Taiwan Relations Act, the American institute in Taiwan, etc.

Aargh! That should formally not formerly.

[cc]

I read the first two sentences and scrolled down to see the length of the comments. I knew who the author was immediately.

[cc]

Michael starts with the argument about who has the higher moral ground as always initiated by him that will lead us to nowhere but again and over again the reinforcement of his notion that Taiwan is the goody side and being bullied by the baddies on the mainland.

I reckon some people in Taiwan don't care too much about whether there would be any American blood spilled over a potential Taiwan strait war, nor do they, I can speak with confidence, care about whether there would be any Chinese blood spilled. At least I hope that these people would care a little bit about whether there would be Taiwanese (excluding those on the island who still identify themselves ethnically Chinese and hold a Republic of China passport)blood spilled.

If the zealots on the island consider Taiwan independence such a holy cause that justifies dragging two nuclear powers and at least a quarter of the mankind (if not much more than that later), etc into a war which everybody tries to avoid except those guys. What can you say?

[Michael Turton]

cc,

too bad you didn't actually read the comments. Then you would have found out that I'm advocating that the DPP give on this one, and I think they will. I'm more interested in why State has such a wildly skewed vision of itself and its behavior, and Taipei is so out of touch with what's going on in DC.

I guess there might be people who don't care whether US blood is spilled in the Taiwan Strait, but I have never met one. I don't think there are any in this conversation, either.

Michael

[Michael Turton]

Michael starts with the argument about who has the higher moral ground as always initiated by him that will lead us to nowhere but again and over again the reinforcement of his notion that Taiwan is the goody side and being bullied by the baddies on the mainland.

Really, I must ask. Are you on crack? Nowhere do I discuss who has the high moral ground.

Michael

[cc]

I actually read your comment.

[Donald]

1. Green Party in Taiwan don't consider those Chinese in Taiwan as human being (Chinese pigs, as they often call them) why would they care about hundreds of thousands of war death of mainland Chinese?

2. As to the possible massive death of people in Taiwan if war break out, President Chen answered it very well: It won't happen. The reason is simple: American will protect Taiwan.

3. As to possible American death, why would Green Party care?

The trick is to provoke as much as he can to get American fight a war for Taiwan. A few Iraq exiles tricked American into invading Iraq, why shouldn't Chen do the same? It cost nothing to him.

[Michael Turton]

Can we get back to the point -- analyzing what's going on? If you have substantive arguments, please make them.

Michael

[Donald]

> 3. The State Department has never challenged China's military expansion, or its cooperation with the KMT and the Blue parties in Taiwan,

What's wrong with KMT's coopeation with mainland, or mainland cooperrate with KMT? KMT supporters see themselves as Chinese, but not under the People's Republic of China, and thus maintaining the status quo.

Are you suggesting US should accept Taiwan to change the name from republic of China to Taiwan, and for US to fight a war with China?

No one is rejecting the fact that China has an authoritarian government. Then, are you suggesting US should take the Iraq approach, instead of the engagement approach taken since Nixon, which changed China completely.

Instead of engagement, if bring back the time to 1970's and to use military power to change China to what it is today, how many wars and how many millions of people have to die to "bomb" China into what it is today?

[Lan]

Michael kept saying that "there isn't going to be any blood spilled over this" and "nothing will have happened". Well, people held the same belief before China intervened the Korean War and the Sino-Vietnamese War and Sino-Indian War broke out. History proves that something WILL happen if Beijing deems the issue as a matter of sovereign right to its territory.

[Falen]

A lot of smoke but ultimately it will lead to nothing.

China knows this and will simply sit back and let Taiwan and US become even more bitter at each other. Believe it or not China and US has a greater consensus on how to handle the Taiwan Strait situation than with Taiwan, which is sadly very ironic.

[Falen]

The decision to leave Taiwan to rot is getting easier and easier to make for the US. Taiwan is becoming more and more of a liability to the US.

[Asia News]

China attacks Taiwan November 2007. Taiwan takes over China.

[Asia News]

China attacks Taiwan November 2007. Taiwan takes over China.

[Paul Denlinger]

If the DPP wanted to show true statesmanship, they would offer to send officials to Beijing to convince BJ why Taiwan should be given independent nation status and allowed into the UN.

They will never do this, since they are only interested in posturing, and want to win more votes in Taiwan.They are gambling wrongly that the US is willing to give blanket support to any democratically elected government.

The message from Washington DC is very clear: if you continue to unilaterally provoke changes in the status quo with the referendum, you should not count on US military support if you cross any Chinese red lines. China is now more important economically and diplomatically than Taiwan, and we are going to wash our hands of Taiwan.

I applaud Washington's stance on this issue. It is a controlled and measured response, and is in the best interests of America and the American people. At the same time, it is a penultimate appeal to reason to the people of Taiwan.

[Ed]

Taiwan is already independent. The US will not abandon Taiwan because we still find the island nation a useful strategic position against china. I applaud what the Taiwanese are doing, as they must do what is in their best interests.
Paul Denlinger...aren't we supposed to support all democracies as the policeman of the world? Come on now...you can't possibly tell me that we'll invade Iraq, but won't keep the Chinese from taking Taiwan?

[Paul Denlinger]

Democracy is based on the premise that government by a large group of idiots is less bad than giving absolute power to one man.

Taiwan has the worst of both worlds: it is led by a group of idiots, and has given absolute power to Little Mussolini, Chen Shuibian.

The Chinese claim to Taiwan is a good claim, and is supported by most of the international community, including the government of the United States. The position of the US is that it supports the status quo, and that it should only be resolved peacefully. Chen's proposed referendum disrupts the status quo and gives Beijing reason to intervene, and also gives the US a reason to stand by and let Taiwan commit suicide.

[Michael Turton]

If the DPP wanted to show true statesmanship, they would offer to send officials to Beijing to convince BJ why Taiwan should be given independent nation status and allowed into the UN.

Beijing will not talk to the DPP.

Taiwan has the worst of both worlds: it is led by a group of idiots, and has given absolute power to Little Mussolini, Chen Shuibian.

That's hilarious. One of the government's biggest problems is the weakness of the Presidency.

Michael

[Michael Turton]

What's wrong with KMT's coopeation with mainland, or mainland cooperrate with KMT? KMT supporters see themselves as Chinese, but not under the People's Republic of China, and thus maintaining the status quo.

The issue is that the US does not see China's interference in Taiwan's internal affairs as a violation of the Status Quo. It could, if it wanted to, but it chooses not to.

The real point is that there are many things that could be construed as status quo violations, but only some are actually selected. And those are usually Taiwanese actions. State's silence on China is vast.

Michael

[Falen]

Ed,

It boils down to a conflict of will.

US has interest in principle supporting democracies around the world. However, it ultimately support whoever when it suits its interest. The only exception perhaps is Israel. Taiwan has not such importance to US overall and has the luxury to make the calculation whether to support Taiwan or not at the last moment. A shooting war over Taiwan Strait is no laughing matter: very high risk+cost and everyone loses. Imagine if you are the president of US, the decision to go to war is extremely difficult while it is simple to just do nothing. It is a "war of choice." In a world where Taiwan is conquered in the worst possible way, it might actually suit US interest.

On the other hand, the will to unify China is backed up by a powerful force, Chinese Nationalism. Before anyone jump in and claim the nefarious evil of chicom propaganda + education that is the "One China" principle, remember Nationalist Taiwan claimed the same thing back in the 50s~70s. Whether this sentiment is rational or not, basically it is what it is, you can't go around and change mind that easily for perhaps generations. And for the Chinese, they've basically claimed massive destruction to itself is immaterial to being able to reclaim Taiwan. It is fundamental to the Chinese nation.

Although most people look at the mismatch of US and China overall capability and say China is only talking tough, they ignore the clear mismatch of political will. If Taiwan flagrantly declares independence tomorrow, China is not gonna sit around and make some cost/benefit analysis and waiver if US deters enough. China is going to at least "try" even if they know they won't succeed.

[Falen]

Let me ask a rhetorical question: does Taiwan enjoy the same political support in the US as Israel? I think it is a useful comparison in gauging whether US will ultimately support Taiwan in the event of a war.

[cc]

"The issue is that the US does not see China's interference in Taiwan's internal affairs as a violation of the Status Quo ......

The real point is that there are many things that could be construed as status quo violations......."

Michael, aren't you arguing against yourself I wonder?

[Donald]

Chen Shuibian just declared all documents related to his corruption charges are "top national security" so that court cannot touch him. He put the whistle blower legislator of his corruption in jail. Of course that's not unusual in third world politics. The real point is, his green supporters support him strongly on these movements because he is a "good guy" and good guy can do anything.

Taiwan does have a democratic institution. But to think its society as a real democracy is far fetched. Democratic institution cannot prevent suicidal leaders and crazy actions. Hitler as an example was risen from democratic institution.

To help Taiwan better themselves and to be a real democratic example for the world, particularly China, we must stop those idiots dragging US and China into a war. If 4000 US death in Iraq
is unacceptable, then death count for a war with China over Taiwan's name will be much higher than that, and all of that is absolutely unnecessary, not to mention the Chinese death and the flatten of Taiwan.

Any democratic development in Taiwan has tremendous positive impact in mainland. Chinese government will not admit it, but it’s a fact. But DPP’s continuing twist of Taiwan independence is totally unacceptable to all Chinese, and a great cause to unite all Chinese and to crush Taiwan. Sounds odd but if anyone doesn’t understand this, then a little study on why a bombing of a Iraqi mosque can cause so much bloodshed, or a short research on why a historically low 3800 war death in Iraq can cause US wanting to withdraw, may help,

The long term benefit of people in Taiwan, and those in mainland and US, depends on the political reform in mainland China. A healthy, modern and moderate China is the real solution to all the issues discussed here, not an election trick of name change in Taiwan.

[Shin]

Remember the referendum is about the use of the name of "Taiwan" to join UN. There is no official name change of the country. The referendum may have the implication of pursueing Taiwan Independence, but legally it has not violate any agreement or rules between US and Taiwan. US assistant secretary's comment is beyond comprehension. How about not allowing American to use U.S. as the name of the country? How about calling U.S. "The Colonial Briton Land"? How about not allowing any one to call Mr. Christenson his name but Mr. XXXmen?

Taiwan's free democracy has allow Taiwanese to grow with self-respect and dignity.

Just as Americans would say "Live Free or Die". Taiwanese would say "Live With Diginity or Die Surrendering".