Nelson Report: Chen at AEI

The Nelson Report again, this time on the White House comments expressing opposition to the UN referendum. Note that Hu Jin-tao of China has already called the referendum an "act of secession" in a clear reference to the Anti-Secession Law. Note that while the WH has hacked on Taiwan repeatedly for the UN referendum -- which can't possibly succeed -- it has said little about the Anti-Secession Law and even less about the missiles and military buildup, in the Taiwan context.

Two other things should noted. First, as Feiren pointed out to me in a private conversation, the DPP is now totally controlling the domestic agenda. Remember when Ma was going to run on the economy? Well, the economy is a problem, but it is not dominating the discourse. Instead, the DPP's UN entry campaign is, to the point that the KMT has come up with a referendum of its own, wanting to enter as "Taipei, China" -- in its own way an apt expression of the sentiments of Taipei, which is nothing like the rest of the island.[UPDATE: Feiren informs me that Ma Ying-jeou has said Taipei, China is an unacceptable name and his original remarks were taken out of context]. Once again the KMT is dancing to the DPP tune. The problem, really, is that the KMT lacks any coherent, positive vision of the future -- and however impaired the DPP's organization skills and ethical stances might be, the DPP can offer an authentic, positive vision of the future to the voters.

Second, what is the US up to, really? Does it even have a plan? Hacking on Taiwan will only make the Taiwanese more determined to vote for Hsieh in '08.

On to the Nelson Report:

++++++++++++++++++++

SUMMARY: Taiwan's president Chen delivered an emotional but legalistic explanation and defense of why he will continue to pursue a national referendum on whether to pursue UN membership under the name "Taiwan", despite firm US opposition.

Chen seems to calculate that if there is a large enough public vote for the referendum next March, as planned, then a ground swell of pressure will be created on the Bush Administration to, at a minimum, stop criticizing Chen's various efforts to redefine Taiwan's international space.

No serious observer of US-Taiwan and US-China relations thinks such a plan has any chance of success, regardless of the vote, so a continued rise in tensions between Washington and Taipei seems inevitable...with clear risks for all involved.

The White House seems to be aware of this danger. See our underlined portion of today's press briefing at APEC:

"Q - You mentioned that President Bush had expressed concerns about Taiwan's referendum on U.N. membership. What's the way forward on that? I mean, is there a next step for President Bush to take in this dispute?

MR. JEFFREY: Well, I think that, once again, the Chinese have to characterize their position. But I believe that they understand President Bush's position. I think that they were pleased at the public reiteration of our position last week by John Negroponte. We referred to that. Both sides are well aware of that and referred to that. And I think for the moment we'll continue to monitor the situation.

We are concerned very much about this step that Taiwan has undertaken. We also don't want to see this blown up too big. We don't want to see anyone provoked by the actions of the Taiwanese. So, for the moment we're going to stay with our position and continue to exert our good influence on the Taiwanese to see if we can change their position."

We'll discuss all this below, but will briefly note that it looks to us as though the US, China, and Taiwan are now locked into very different definitions of the "status quo" which increasingly conflict, and which by their very structure make maintaining the peaceful status quo increasingly difficult.

As Mike Green and Kurt Campbell suggested at AEI this morning, joining Randy Schriver in a separate venue (The Taipei Times) all three sides need to think seriously about what it means to be a "responsible stakeholder"...this means finding ways to work positively, cooperatively, at maintaining the peaceful status quo.

Inevitably, that must include more formal, high level dialogue.

-0-
-0-

US-TAIWAN...our "summary" notes the basic situation. Here's a very interesting "reaction" and warning from The Economist magazine on the US criticisms of the UN membership referendum:

"In the past, when angered by Taiwan's maneuvering, China has rattled its sabre, with the unintended consequence of boosting support for the DPP. This year, however, China has largely remained calm, but for some pointed references to the Anti-Secession Law.

"In fact it was America's opposition to the referendum that brought the debate to life in Taiwan. Tired of the political bickering, and doubtful about Mr Chen's leadership, the Taiwanese public showed little interest until last month. Then John Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state, said the referendum was a mistake and that America considered it a step towards a declaration of independence.

"Just as China has learned in the past, however, such criticism of moves towards de jure independence can backfire. America's reaction has convinced the DPP, already skeptical of the depth of American support for Taiwan, that it has nothing to lose by pursuing a campaign that is bound to harm ties. Even so, the referendum may not give it the backing it wants. Under Taiwan's referendum law, the proposal needs more than half the 16.8m eligible voters to cast their ballots and more than half of those who vote to support it. Even with the bonus of American opposition, that may be too high a bar.

There's a possible point of agreement between the Economist, and the White House, as noted in the APEC press briefing quote in our Summary, and by the AEI panelists: that is, there's a rising sense that the current terms and methods of US-Taiwan dialogue need to be changed, if the current, risky downward spiral is to be headed-off.

At the close of tonite's Report, we present a recent Op Ed by former Deputy Asst. Sec. State Randy Schriver, now back with the Armitage consulting firm, outlining in some detail the sorts of changes he thinks are both needed, and potentially helpful.

We thought there were many aspects of President Chen's presentation this morning which, from a strictly legal or strictly moral, or even strictly logical point of view, you couldn't argue much.

Who in this country is opposed to the legitimate exercise of democracy? Who doesn't wish more democracy, more respect for the rule of law in China?

But we thought that the potentially most revealing thing Chen said and did... something which the AEI panel gamely tried to pass off with mild jokes about alternative song titles...was to actually recite word for word as his "credo" in this matter, the lyrics from "Man of LaMancha" in which the doomed hero, Don Quixote, says he is prepared to end up in Hell, so long as he fights the good fight and dies with a clean conscience.

Many in the audience, commenting privately after, asked the obvious question: do you really want to put your fate in the hands of a national leader who seriously says he is prepared to lead you right over a cliff, to Hell itself, just so long as the battle is morally upright?

{The current Iraq debate in the US has something to do with this syndrome, we'd suggest.)

Chen also repeated rhetoric which even some supporters concede sounds petulant, comparing US policy on China to "appeasement", and claiming that it's US policy making war with China over Taiwan more, not less likely.

He added insult to injury with repetition of a theme heard from other DPP officials, that perhaps it's Taiwan which has been "too obedient" to US wishes.

When US officials have a chance to parse all of the above, and to brief President Bush, we suspect there may be futher statements along the lines of those issued last week by Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte, and NSC Senior Director for Asia Dennis Wilder.

Parenthectically, we'd note that Chen made passing remarks aimed at isolating for criticism the US AIT rep in Taipei, Steve Young, and State Department officials here, including Negroponte.

We suspect that on balance, Chen and other DPP officials recognize that it's not a smart idea to directly criticize President Bush, no matter how tempting...so to a certain extent, you have to expect things like the stupid commentary in some Taiwan press that Young, like his predecessor, Doug Paal, and certain State Department working-level folks are "members of the Taiwan haters club".

Sober minded friends of Taiwan warn that this flawed analysis of the power structure in Washington, and this misunderstanding of the degree of President Bush's personal involvement in policy on Taiwan, is not just misleading, it is potentially fatal to US-Taiwan relations, and so to everything that Chen and the DPP hope to achieve.

Somewhat along the same theme, Rep. Dana Rorabacher, living proof of President Harry Truman's dictum that "my enemies I can handle, it's my friends who scare the hell out of me", at AEI today in his role as co-chair of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, amused himself by calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

As Rorabacher well knows, this is a live hand grenade, especially in the China-Taiwan dialogue, and President Chen has been gamely fighting with China to find a way to participate in the Games, including to have the Olympic torch run across the island...under a name acceptable to both sides.

So while Chen didn't explicitly reject Rorabacher's call, his answer made clear he's trying to find a way for Taiwan to play in the Games, but also the legalistic minefield which constitutes so much of the Cross Strait debate...and which goes to the heart of the current UN referendum battle.

One of these days, when we can summon the energy, we'll take a crack at explaining why many in the DPP seem to think it's worth fighting, and dying, over the difference between "Taiwan", "The Republic of China" and other formulations.

In the meantime, Chen did score one big rhetorical point with his argument that something on the order of 40% of current UN members including China do not use their legal name at the UN! Is that right?

++++++++++++++++++++

The Economist article is online here, but Nelson has the high points. The Economist's crack that the public had shown "little interest" in the referendum until the US criticized it misses the point badly. The public had shown "little interest" because it is broadly supportive of it. Back in June the KMT noted:

Saying that the KMT was willing to support anything that helped to promote Taiwan's international status, Su said the party did not understand why the DPP wanted to pursue such a referendum because there was a consensus among the people of Taiwan in favor of joining the UN.

As to whether the KMT would propose another referendum on joining the UN under the name "Republic of China" as a countermeasure against the DPP, Su said a final decision had not been made.

Commenting on the proposal, pan-blue legislative leaders expressed disapproval.

"Joining the UN is everyone's wish, but what name we should use is a question of international reality. The president should not be rigid on this," KMT Secretary-General Wu Den-yi (吳敦義) said.

The Economist has misinterpreted the situation, as if it had argued that Taiwanese are uninterested in preventing arson because no one is out on the streets protesting. The reason no one is out on the streets protesting is because everyone has already agreed UN entry is a good thing. This is what happens when media reps spend too much time in largely pan-Blue Taipei listening to what anti-DPP gossip -- in a high context society like Taiwan, everyone knows exactly what they should be saying in public, especially when they are talking to media reps. And what they say in public has nothing to do with what they will actually do. Ever notice how all those Taiwanese who complain about the horrors of the Taiwan educational system and about how much they'd like to see change send their kids to the best cram schools?

Nelson writes:

But we thought that the potentially most revealing thing Chen said and did... something which the AEI panel gamely tried to pass off with mild jokes about alternative song titles...was to actually recite word for word as his "credo" in this matter, the lyrics from "Man of LaMancha" in which the doomed hero, Don Quixote, says he is prepared to end up in Hell, so long as he fights the good fight and dies with a clean conscience.

Many in the audience, commenting privately after, asked the obvious question: do you really want to put your fate in the hands of a national leader who seriously says he is prepared to lead you right over a cliff, to Hell itself, just so long as the battle is morally upright?

I hope those private commentors think again. This is the kind of meaningless, emotive rhetoric that is normal in politics here, but is considered in bad taste in politics in the Anglo-speaking world. Flowery, overblown rhetoric is a convention of communication in Chinese cultures -- just try translating those company descriptions that run, in English, something like "Our great company, striving eternally..." which causes us freelance translators to tear our hair out in explaining to clients that the conventions of communication in the two cultures differ, and no, we can't translate that word for word. Chen won't lead anyone over a cliff because he can't -- Constitutional change is almost impossible, structurally, needing the approval of both the legislature and a public referendum. He's just posturing. As always, when watching people in Chinese cultures, stop listening to what they say, and watch what they do. Taipei, too, needs to understand that in the west, the ideal is that the way you describe reality, and reality itself, should be aligned. Hence Washington reads too much into what comes out of Taipei, and Taipei, too little into what comes out of Washington.

Nevertheless, Nelson constantly warns, for whatever reasons, US-Taiwan relations are at a low, and it would be nice for Taiwan to give in to US concerns on this issue, somehow. Taipei has a fine handle on Beijing, but the US is a mystery to it. Washington may overinterpret Taipei's remarks, but Taipei too is like the little child who does not understand that the dog's growl means it is going to get bit. Isn't there anyone out there who can approach both sides within their own respective frameworks of understanding and get the idea across?

VIDEO: President Chen at the American Enterprise Institute.

[Taiwan] [US] [China]