By Tao Wenzhao
At a House International Relations Committee hearing last
Wednesday, Robert Zoellick, the US deputy secretary of state, sent
a strong warning signal to the Taiwan authorities and some ironclad
pro-Taiwan US lawmakers. This has drawn widespread attention.
Earlier this month, Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian was denied a
layover in the US by the US authorities during his South America
visit and he had to make a gigantic detour, which took him 37 hours
to get to his destination.
Chen vented his grievance to a number of US House
representatives in their meeting on the sidelines of the
inauguration of the Costa Rican president.
His complaints struck a sympathetic chord with these US
lawmakers and they asked Zoellick at the hearing if the US
government refused to allow Chen to stop in a US city because it
was under the pressure of the Chinese mainland.
Zoellick answered by saying, "The balance is that we want to be
supportive of Taiwan while we're not encouraging those that try to
move toward independence…. Because let me be very clear:
independence means war. And that means casualties of American
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines."
Zoellick's remarks have three connotations.
First, the US government is clear about China's will for the
reunification of the motherland, which finds expression in the
formulation of the Anti-Secession Law last March and Chinese
leaders' reiteration that China is determined to safeguard its
national sovereignty and territorial integrity at all costs.
The strong message has registered with the US government and is
treated very seriously.
Second, in case war broke out between the mainland and Taiwan,
the US would be drawn into the conflict because of its obligations
and commitments in the Taiwan Relations Act. This would mean
casualties of US armed forces.
Third, the US does not want to go to war with China for the sake
of Taiwan. So the US government discourages "Taiwan independence"
and cautiously handles Taiwan-related affairs, including the Taiwan
leader's layovers in the US.
This is the first time that a high-ranking US official used such
clear-cut language to sound warnings against "Taiwan
independence."
On April 2004, James Kelly, the then US assistant secretary of
state, said at a House International Relations Committee meeting
that it was irresponsible for the US and the Taiwan authorities to
treat China's intolerance of "Taiwan independence" as a sheer
bluff.
That sounded a warning against "Taiwan independence" elements
but the language was more round about than the words used by
Zoellick this time.
This is also a warning for the ears of some US lawmakers,
suggesting "Taiwan independence" be not encouraged, otherwise it
would mean US involvement in war and, in turn, US casualties.
Some may ask if Zoellick was voicing his personal opinion or
representing the policy of the Bush administration. He was taking
the official stand of the US government.
It should be remembered that Zoellick, speaking at the National
Committee on US-China Relations last September, defined China as a
"stakeholder" in the international system and some people then
asked him there if he represented the US government with that
statement.
The term has been cited by senior US officials time and again
and was even included into the White House National Security
Strategy Report. Now it is clear that Zoellick was speaking for
the US government.
Zoellick, having an economics background, is the leading voice
in the US policy toward China. The way the policy is expressed is,
of course, tinged with his personal attributes. But his position
undoubtedly represents that of the US government's.
Zoellick also reaffirmed that the US has adopted a one-China
policy ever since the 1970s and if some people want to challenge
this policy, they would hit a wall.
This suggests that the one-China policy, constituting the
political cornerstone for Sino-US ties, has been consistently
pursued by the US government over the decades ever since the
Chinese-American rapprochement in the 1970s.
Chen's abolishment of the "National Unification Council" and
"National Unification Guidelines" in February indeed upset the US
and his political credibility with Washington plummeted sharply.
Moreover, his behavior is unpredictable and the US is not sure of
what he will be up to next in the course of "introducing
constitutional amendments."
So the US has made its position very clear in the hope of
forestalling any possible treacherous political moves on Chen's
part.
It is only natural that Zoellick's remarks made Chen unhappy and
resentful.
Chen said on Saturday that the status quo between the mainland
and Taiwan was "two countries across the Straits," harping on the
"one country on each side" fallacy he put forward in August
2002.
Though he reiterated the US remained the focus of Taiwan's
diplomacy, Chen said stopover in the US would not be important in
his future overseas visits. Sour grape. No wonder some media
reports say that Chen has lost his "Taiwan card game."
The author is a senior researcher with the Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences.
(China Daily May 18, 2006)
