Bush Administration Signals Obama Administration on Cross-Strait Issues

The Taipei Times reported on the remarks of Steven Hadley on Bush Asia policy. According to the Taipei Times, Hadley warned both sides to hew to the Status Quo....

Answering questions following a major farewell speech in Washington on Wednesday, Hadley addressed the China-Taiwan issue in more extensive terms than he has done before in public.

He said the framework of US President George W. Bush’s policies with respect to China and Taiwan had been based on keeping the “status quo” in place while “at the same time making very clear to China that we would carry out our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure that Taiwan had the capacity to provide for its own defense.”

“Bush has tried to have a course that basically respects the ‘one China’ policy ... and the three communiques, which are the bulwark of our policy with respect to China, but also to make very clear that both sides, China and Taiwan, need to respect the status quo and there needs to be no unilateral actions by either side,” he said.

“The President stood very firm with respect to those principles ... And I think that helped get through a difficult patch in the relations between China and Taiwan, and [has] helped encourage what is really a very hopeful turn in relations between China and Taiwan,” Hadley said.

As chief White House adviser on security issues, Hadley appeared to be going out of his way to stress — in a way that he has not done before — that under Bush the US was ready to make sure that Taiwan was able to defend itself in the case of an attack by China.

It is significant because much of the speech, which dealt with hotspots around the world, was directed at the incoming administration of president-elect Barack Obama.

“When President Bush approached Asia, he approached it not by starting first with our relations with China, but starting first with our relations with our traditional allies. A central feature of his Asia policy was to strengthen those alliances and to try and deal with a pretty long list of unresolved issues and irritants in those relationships,” Hadley said.

There's not much more you can say about the Bush Administration's complete reconstruction of the status quo, except satire -- thank all gods the Bush Administration was so tough on the status quo with China, otherwise we might be facing 1,400 missiles across the Taiwan Strait.....

As for addressing the nation's traditional allies, the Japanese Institute of International Affairs wrote this week:

Many American experts argue that the Bush administration had many diplomatic successes in Asia, such as a stronger Japanese-U.S. alliance, a stronger partnership with China, and an improved strategic alignment, if not yet an alliance, with India. But many Japanese, including myself, are inclined to disagree.

...

Many Japanese also believe that the United States has become too dependent upon China's financial and trading power and thus has reduced its strategic options. With its huge dollar reserve, China now has the United States in a bind, as it now would have difficulty confronting China's military power, helping defend Taiwan, or imposing sanction on Beijing in response to its poor record on human rights and treatment of minorities. Japan, too, is in a similar situation, since China is the largest trading partner. Nonetheless, it would like Washington to have a wider array of strategic options for Japan's and its own security.

The US tilt toward China is placing Japan in a very awkward position. The Bush Administration worked assiduously to get Ma Ying-jeou elected, and the KMT is rewarding the administration by putting Taiwan directly into China's orbit, blowing a hole in 50 years of diplomatic effort.

Great work, guys.

Hadley's Remarks in Full from White House Press Release...(wait until blog loads COMPLETELY!)January 7, 2009

Remarks by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
CSIS
Washington, D.C.

White House News

----
We have built a stronger relationship with China based on cooperation where we agree and candor where we disagree. Tensions with -- over Taiwan have eased considerably. And we continue to press China on human rights and religious freedom.
-----

Q Sir, you mentioned U.S.-China relations. You touched upon cross-strait relationship, the reduction of tension. How -- could you elaborate a little bit more on the current state of U.S.-China relations, which seems to be one of the bright spots of President Bush's foreign policy successes, and also the current state of U.S.-Taiwan relations, which experienced some very hard times over the last eight years? Thank you very much.

MR. HADLEY: What President Bush has tried to do is have a course that basically respects, you know, the One China policy and all the rest, and the three communiqués which are the bulwark of our policy with respect to China, but also to make very clear that we -- that both sides, China and Taiwan, need to respect the status quo, and there needs to be no unilateral actions by either side. And that was very much his -- the framework of his policy with respect to China, and at the same time making very clear to China that we would carry out our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure that Taiwan had the capacity to provide for its own defense.

And the President stood very firm with respect to those principles. And I think that helped get through a difficult patch in the relations between China and Taiwan, and have helped encourage what is really a very hopeful turn in relations between China and Taiwan.

But I want to make another point, which is that when China -- when President Bush approached Asia, he approached it not by starting first with our relations with China, but starting first with our relations with our traditional allies. And he took, as part of his -- a central feature of his Asia policy -- to strengthen those alliances and to try and deal with a pretty long list of unresolved issues and irritants in those relationships, dealing with our force presence, the location of our forces, and all the rest, and working with successive governments in Japan and South Korea.

We have really worked through that list over these last eight years. And I think those relationships are very strong. And that provides a platform for the United States in dealing with China, both the opportunities and challenges presented by China.

So I think it is also very important for the new administration to think in the same way about how they are going to approach the issue of Asia more generally, and to see our relations with China in that broader context.

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090107-4.html

[Taiwan]

Taiwan Arms Freeze Alters Status Quo

Heritage Foundation scholar John Tkacik has a piece at Heritage on the Bush Administration's continuing refusal to lift the arms freeze on Taiwan, attributing it to the Administration's anxiousness to obtain "cooperation" on China....

The President’s hesitation to move on Taiwan may be related to his conversation Monday, September 22, with Chinese President Hu Jintao in which the two leaders discussed how China could help with the current “financial turmoil” on Wall Street and “particularly” how the two leaders could “properly handle the Taiwan question.”

...further noting...

Why would the White House whip-saw a loyal ally and one of America’s three most important security partners in East Asia? Perhaps because of its increasingly sanguine view of China’s record and potential as a security partner. Chinese “help” with North Korea’s “dismantlement” of its nuclear weapons program—now being reassembled—has perhaps persuaded the Administration of the value of being China’s friend.

Tkacik also comments on speculation in Washington....

A complementary view in Washington is that Taiwan simply cannot defend itself, even with the submarines, missile defense systems, anti-submarine aircraft, and so forth included in the current package, so it should not even try. This line of reasoning suggests that Taiwan adopt a “porcupine strategy” of mining all 180 miles of beaches on its west coast with surf-zone sea mines and weapons designed for waters less than 10 feet deep, then engage whatever invaders manage to actually land on those beaches with truck-mounted Harpoon missiles and assorted other last-ditch weapons. These are weapons that will not offend China, so the U.S. could sell these weapons without harming its relations with China.

Like many commentators, Tkacik notes that freeze violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Another point he makes is that it grossly violates Reagan's six assurances, one of which assures that the US will not hold consultations with China prior to selling weapons to Taiwan, and the other which promises that the US will keep Taiwan in parity with China -- and that the determination of weapons sales to Taiwan will be based solely on the PRC threat to the island.

During the Chen years many US analysts said that Chen was violating the status quo. One or two outside the Administration observed that China's violations of the status quo were far more serious and dangerous to the US-allied democracies around China. Almost no one has pointed out that the Bush Administration has now thoroughly violated the status quo -- by tilting toward China and by refusing to sell weapons to Taiwan: the US is now the chief violator of the status quo. Tkacik points out the danger for Taiwan of Bush's policy: the next President will be asked to continue it:

Senior Bush Administration officials, current and former, say privately it is a safe bet that Chinese President Hu will pocket President Bush’s Taiwan arms freeze and confront the next U.S. President to maintain the Bush “baseline.” The Chinese will threaten the next Administration with “serious consequences” if the U.S. “backslides” on the issue.

Former US official Randall Shriver observed in his appearance here several months ago that bot the McCain and Obama campaigns have said that they will sell arms to Taiwan, but they would prefer that the Bush Administration do it. It's long past time for the Bush Administration to grow up on this issue, and to nurture the status quo, instead of making permanent concessions for temporary gains.

Tkacik points out that current President Ma Ying-jeou desperately needs the sales to shore up his sagging position vis-a-vis China -- it's funny now to read things like this just-released CSIS report on confidence building across the Taiwan Strait -- funny because China has so thoroughly refused to cooperate with Ma. China could hardly have a bigger fan than Ma Ying-jeou and his KMT, yet it has given nothing to Taiwan. As friend of Taiwan Nat Bellocchi comments today in the Taipei Times: "...there is nothing that suggests Beijing will soften its line on obstructing international participation for Taiwan, even in isolated cases." Let that be a lesson to those out there who think that China will be accomodating to its friends.

ALSO: This piece at Taiwan News that observes that Taiwan is not Georgia.

We hope that the next U.S. president continues dialogue with China not to help the PRC squash Taiwan's democracy but to persuade Beijing to cease to block the participation of a democratic and peaceful Taiwan in the global community and realize that maintaining Taiwan as a democratic "lighthouse" is critical to ensuring the fostering of both peace and democracy in Asia.

and the Presidential office is hopeful the sales will still happen. It's a bureaucratic possibility, but just barely....

[Taiwan]

South Ossetia and Taiwan

Some amazing stuff going on in the Caucasus right now. Information overload. Far Eastern Sweet Potato has an analysis here that faults the US. Over on the progressive site DailyKos there are several good analyses, including a long one by Jerome a Paris who apparently did PHD work on the independence of the Ukraine. Crooked Timber, the well known academic blog, observes the relationship between US support for Kosovan independence and Russia's invasion of Georgia. The US actually has a base in Georgia with "advisors", and "private" Israeli firms are also involved in training there. It's important to check the maps -- Georgia is where an all-important oil pipeline reaches the Black Sea. A glance at other maps will show that US military involvement follows the pipeline network -- in Afghanistan, where pipelines head into China and down to India (and which was a gas exporter prior to the 1980 Soviet invasion), Iraq, and Iran. Taiwan? All our pipelines are local....

Russia said a while back that it would treat South Ossetia like Taiwan....

After the Kosovo precedent, Russia will treat its relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia “the Taiwan way,” argues Mikhail Alexandrov, head of the Caucasus Department at the CIS Institute. Speaking at a roundtable discussion “Russia and the Caucasian Agglomeration of Problems — Perspectives of the Parade of Sovereignties,” Alexandrov called this scenario most adequate. He reminded that the European Union has its trade mission on Taiwan, and the US have deployed on the island a military base.

At the same time, Alexandrov contends, Russia will not go as far as to formally recognize Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transdnestr. In his words, recognition of these territories is illogical whereas Moscow does not bow to the unilateral proclamation of Kosovo's independence. He does not exclude that, choosing the “Taiwan way,” Russia will open its missions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Economic cooperation with these territories will be extended, Alexandrov forecasts.

You can see what "the Taiwan way" really means = wait until the chance comes to intervene militarily. Russia has also exposed the gigantic flaw in the US Russian policy -- the Americans were not willing to go war with Russia over Georgia -- especially since, as I suspect the future will reveal, the Russians have given them assurances that the oil will continue to flow. Many might now see the US, fresh off defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, now defeated again in Georgia, because it appears that Russia has absolutely bitch-slapped the Bush Administration. China must be eying the US response, eying Taiwan, and judging accordingly.

Yet, as this mess was occurring, Georgia was applying for NATO membership. Imagine if this had occurred with Georgia as a full member obligating all NATO members to support it. What a test that would have been.....

[Taiwan]

Nelson Report: Andrew Card to Lead US Delegation

Many news sources are reporting that Andrew Card, with longstanding ties to the Bush family, will be sent to represent the US at Ma's swearing-in. The Nelson Report, the Washington Insider Report, with the latest on that and the Administration:

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

TAIWAN...a final quick note...Administration sources had hinted for some time that the White House would try to make-up for not granting president-elect Ma a visa to come here prior to his inauguration, by sending a "very high level" delegation to that event.

So Taiwanese sources today are reacting with some disappointment that the leader of President Bush's personal delegation is to be former White House chief of staff, and former Secretary of Transportation, Andy Card.

We'd argue that any angst is misplaced, in this sense: obviously, if the rumors that the White House was approaching former Secretary of State Jim Baker had proven true (or had worked out) that would be a very big deal by anyone's measure, most particularly in Beijing.

But the selection of Card sends a more subtle message, of nearly equal importance when you recognize that for President Bush, there is little distinction between the personal and the official, and that for him, the personal is equally if not more important.

Sometimes this is good, sometimes not so good!

In any event, Card is a close, trusted, and valued associate of Bush, and we are reminded that he was deeply involved in Taiwan affairs, behind the scenes, during his tenure as chief of staff.[MT: Anyone got more info on Card's Taiwan connections?]

So Card is not a mere figure-head, but someone with genuine personal knowledge and experience, in addition to someone who will genuinely represent President Bush in the truest sense.

Another decision many on Taiwan are awaiting...whether the White House will approve the proposed sale of F-16's...we will repeat our earlier report, from directly involved sources, that this decision will wait on a personal request from President Ma.[MT: Taiwan has already delivered a formal request via letter last year, which the Administration blocked.]

If Ma decides that he can balance an F-16 sale against his clear desire for improved cross-Strait relations, in other words, the White House is apparently prepared to consider the sale favorably.

At least part of that calculation, for both Washington and Taipei, is whether China can bring itself to make a confidence building move involving some of its 1,000-plus missiles lined up on the coast.

Senior Chinese sources have told us, and other Loyal Readers confirm, that there IS serious discussion in Beijing of perhaps moving up to a brigade of the missiles...so how one factors the timing of that with possible US arms sales is but one of many interesting things to watch.[MT: Hoo-boy! A whole brigade! Whoopee! According to the Washington Times' Bill Geertz, has up to 96 missiles. China will remove a whole hundred missiles, leaving only....1300, or about twice as many as they had back in 2000! That's progress! And you know that at about the time, or shortly after, they remove the missiles, they'll announce an upgrade/redeployment/new deployment of something important aimed at Taiwan....]

[Taiwan]

Stephen Yates at the Shannon Meet up, Dec 9, 2007

Stephen Yates (left) talks with former AIT official Syd Goldsmith

Our speaker at the Shannon meet up was Stephen Yates, the former advisor to Vice President Darth Dick Cheney. Despite the impression one gets from the media that Bush Administration officials tend to suffer from a singular lack of human feeling, Yates turned out to be eminently approachable, personable, funny, balanced, and very insightful. Probably they revert to normal after the implant is removed....

Anyway, Yates took his listeners on a tour of Bush Administration Taiwan policy, and gave some surprisingly frank assessments of affairs on the inside (which I'm not sharing with you because -- dammit -- you should have been there). Along the way he confirmed the worst of my fears about the Bush Administration's view of the world.

What's the problem with Chen and the Bush Administration? Yates explained that back in 2000 the Administration came into office with a group of people who were fairly knowledgeable about and interested in Asia. Cheney's fascination with Asia dated back to the 70s when Cheney worked in the Ford Administration. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage were two other neocons with Asia connections.

But then came 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. At the same time, overtures from Chen Shui-bian were being rebuffed by China. In 2002, during the planning for the Iraq War, Chen announced the "one country on each side of the Strait" paradigm in response to Chinese intransigence. The Bush Administration, caught up in war planning, complained that Chen was making trouble for it. Doesn't he know he's rocking the boat? Yates said that he had explained that of course Chen had no idea what was going on, because he lives in an isolated island in the Pacific Ocean. After that the Bush Administration simply wanted Chen to shut up so it could get on with its war in Iraq. As I've noted numerous times, since China chooses when Chen should be defined as "provocative," the Bush Administration position essentially concedes its strategic flexibility and moral high ground to China. Nor does Chen help when he makes moves without informing the US beforehand.....no wonder I need strong drink after blogging on our Taiwan policy.

Yates discussed the National Unification Council flap, whose termination by Chen was criticized by the US. Yates said that in Washington there were complaints that the move was entirely symbolic -- you're imposing your symbolism on us! The Administration kvetched. But you're imposing your symbolism on us, complained Chen back, an elegant refutation of the KMT talking point one often hears that Chen is "ideological" -- always given, of course, with a wink and nod that assures that the speaker himself is entirely objective and not motivated by any ideology.

Yates also observed that US complaints about Taiwan's behavior, when such behavior is largely harmless and symbolic, risk US credibility. Given the jeers that met Sarkozy's kowtow to China on Taiwan and Tibet after the recent French visit there, I can only echo that fear. But then, given our behavior in Iraq, I'm afraid we don't have much credibility to put at risk anymore. Someone remarked -- I can't remember who -- that Chen Shui-bian is saying the things about China that the US really ought to be saying.

According to Yates, another structural problem with the US approach is that since the Bush Administration has curtailed high-level contacts, Bush Administration contact with Taiwan is carried on by mid-level officials who come out of policy backgrounds. Those are the kind of people, Yates pointed out, who think politics is dirty and shallow. They have never run for office and do not grok the mentality of politicians. Taiwan is also beset with other problems -- too many voices attempt to speak for Taiwan, they don't all say the same thing, and they work at cross-purposes, sometimes deliberately. And China's lobbying power is much greater, with many powerful people having heavily monied connections to China (see the end of the post).

Yates, who did time at Heritage, repeated many of the same criticisms of officials in key Taiwan/China policymaking positions in the Bush Administration that other conservatives have offered. He also noted that there are no Congressman for whom China/Taiwan is a top five priority. Time was when powerful Congressman made China policy their business, he said, noting that someone like Jesse Helms would hold hearings and take other action. He compared recent statements by Sen. John Warner, whom, he said, spoke out without bothering to get informed (as I pointed out on this blog). Gone are the days when Congressmen like Sen. Claiborne Pell and Reps. Stephen Solarz and Jim Leach worked to keep Taiwan a priority and put an effort into understanding its gonzo politics.

Because the Administration wants Taiwan to keep quiet while it pursues its war in Iraq, Yates says it favors Ma Ying-jeou, who is perceived to be the one who will keep Taiwan quiet. To those of us watching from the outside, its bias is as obvious as it is erroneous-- the same kind of short-sightedness, driven by Realpolitik (Real Men Decide the Fate of Nations^©), under which the US will make permanent concessions to China in exchange for ephemeral gains. Yates and others commenting noted that Kissinger got taken to the cleaners by the Chinese. But Kissinger was a Manly Man, who decided the fate of nations.....US officials are going to be quite surprised by the big changes the pro-China ideologue Ma will make in the cross-strait relationship. Don't say you weren't warned....

As for arms sales, Yates at one point remarked that they were generally a very good thing. Speaking on President Bush's statement that the US would defend Taiwan, Yates said that this statement was more or less implicitly in response to China's lack of cooperation in the incident in which a Chinese fighter had a mid-air collision with a US military intelligence aircraft. Yates said that the White House picked up the hotline and called China....and incredibly, nobody answered! Personally, I have no doubt that nothing nefarious was happening. Instead, the hotline rang and everyone in the room froze: "Does anyone here speak English".....?

All in all, Yates proved to be engaging and informative, the kind of person you'd be equally happy with running your Taiwan policy or swapping beers with at the Taiwan Beer bar. A good time was had by all, and too bad you weren't there.

+++++++

My friend Marc Anthony was kind enough to forward some links for Yates. Here's some of his Heritage Foundation Stuff:

Why Normal Trade With China Should Continue
No Concessions to China - After the Mistaken Embassy Bombing
Put Reform Before Reward at the China Summit

...along with an interview from those days. Best of all is this World Net Daily piece on how Elaine Chao, who came in to head up the Asian program at Heritage and has good connections to the Chinese leadership, got rid of panda bashers and helped tone down criticism of China at Heritage. Chao is the wife of powerful Sen. Mitch McConnell (R). On the other side of aisle, powerful Sen. Diane Feinstein (D ^(DINO)), is the wife of a major investor in China. Wonder why we don't have a China policy? Now you know.....

UPDATE: the Taipei Times interview with Yates, the article appearing on the 19th of Dec.

[Taiwan] [China] [Kitty Hawk] [US]

Burma, Taiwan, and the US

In the recent Pentagon report about China's military Taiwan is shown as not part of China. What does it mean? You tell me!

Therese Shaheen has an excellent commentary in the Wall Street Journal on Taiwan, the Bush Administration and Burma.

The Bush Administration prefers to believe that the problem lies with President Chen, an outspoken advocate for Taiwanese self-determination. But reality is more complex than the U.S. wants to acknowledge. There is growing consensus across the political spectrum in Taiwan the U.S. no longer views Taiwan's democracy as a sine qua non in the three-way relationship between the U.S., Taiwan and China.

Even Taiwan's opposition parties are taking up the banner for U.N. membership. The Kuomintang party's referendum would permit the public to vote on "the Republic of China" entering the U.N. Presumably, between the two "opposing" referenda, a vast majority of the Taiwan people will have the chance to express their desire to join the U.N. -- precisely what the U.S. believes it cannot support.

The Bush Administration seems to believe that Mr. Chen's departure from office next year will lead to some settling back into the status quo that existed for the first two decades after Washington switched its recognition of China from Taipei to Beijing. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen told an audience in Maryland last month that President Chen's decision to frame the issue as a matter for "Taiwan" and not "the Republic of China," "appears to [the U.S.] to be a step intended to change the status quo."

But what has the status quo accomplished? Current U.S. policy is to oppose Taiwan's membership in organizations intended for so-called "state parties." Since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a "state party" and the legitimate representative of China, by definition Taiwan cannot hold membership in the U.N., according to the current policy. But stiff-arming Taipei hasn't served to keep Taiwan's democratic ambitions muffled. Instead, it is hampering the U.S.'s ability to serve as a beacon for emerging democracies elsewhere.

There is obvious irony in Washington's reliance upon Beijing to press Burma's junta to respect self-expression and political freedom even as the U.S. appears to stand side-by-side with Beijing to prevent the same outcomes from flourishing further in Taiwan. The yearning for self-expression by 23 million Taiwan citizens springs from the same human source that brought Buddhist monks flooding into the streets of Rangoon.

The Burma thing also plays up the problem with the Left and Taiwan -- once again, while the Right is out there hijacking words like "democracy," there are no commentaries like this from the Left and Dems in the US, whereas Burma has long engaged the Left's attention. Just another negative legacy of the Chiang Kai-shek years, where Taiwan was scorned by the Left as the fake Free China. There is also still a trace of China The Socialist Utopian out there among a few nutters as well.

The Burma-Taiwan contrast is a problem for the US, but our torture-murder spree in Iraq is what makes the Bush Administration's claims on democracy seem so totally hollow. Nor is Burma the only place where the Administration's Taiwan stance seems a bit conflicted -- see the recent developments in Kosovo, which the US has made independent over the objections of Russia, or longstanding US support for the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithunia. At UPI analyst William Walker argues in an interesting piece that Burma is a problem for China too...

Taiwan is thumbing its nose, preparing to display its military might (including cruise missiles that can hit Chinese targets) with its first military parade in 16 years to celebrate next week’s national day. There are threats of military action if Taiwan acts on the suggestion by President Chen Shui-bian that Taipei should apply to join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan, a direct challenge to Beijing’s insistence on "one China.” Western military observers note with alarm China’s new chief of the general staff has just been promoted from his last job as general commanding the region facing Taiwan.

China’s investors are blithely ignoring official warnings to curtail the floods of savings going into the Shanghai stock market, and an ominous bubble is building, along with inflation spurred on to 8 percent by the surge in pork and other food prices.

And now a campaign is under way by human-rights groups and Western politicians to organize a boycott of next year’s Olympic Games in Beijing, in protest of China’s support for deeply unsavory regimes in Sudan and Myanmar. The Internet reports and grim images of the brutal clampdown of Myanmar’s Buddhist monks may have been stopped, but the horror lingers on. China is paying an increasingly high price for its client states.

A boycott of the Olympics will probably backfire -- but note that human rights groups are NOT boycotting Beijing for pointing missiles at Taiwan and threatening to murder dissenters on The Island Of Dissidents in order to possess their land. Nope -- it's Sudan and Myanmar that for some reason have the right cachet. UPDATE: this last line generated some heat in the comments below. I left my apologies for it.

[Taiwan]

Nelson Report/Bush-Hu Face to Face

The Nelson Report, the Washington Insider's Report, has some thoughts on Taiwan.

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

US-TAIWAN...while we await Bush/Hu at APEC, and Chen at AEI, debate continues over certain usages last week by NSC Senior Director for Asia Dennis Wilder, and a rumor that the State Department actually wrote a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, complaining about the UN Secretariat's mistaken interpretation of Taiwan as an international player.

We are assured that while nothing was put in writing to Ban, a representation was made which clarified for the Secretariat its mistaken interpretation, and it has not been repeated, so everyone now is happy to put the incident behind them.

On Wilder, responding last week to whether Bush/Hu might produce another US statement condemning Chen, he used the word "undecided" to describe US policy on Taiwan's international situation...a usage accurate in summary, but unusual in public discourse, players frankly admit.

As we constantly note, the US-China-Taiwan dialogue approaches arcane levels more common to the Dead Sea Scrolls debate, So any new or unusual usage runs the risk of sounding like a "change in policy"....with all of the consequent "risk to the peaceful status quo" it might put into play.

Not this time, we are officially assured, although the Administration remains deeply concerned that pressure from Chen and the DPP may, presumably inadvertently, force the US to change definitions in ways the DPP presumably would not want...something we have often reported.

That's among the many concerns as players in Washington, Beijing and Taipei await Bush/Hu and Chen performances tomorrow.

There has also been some kerfluffle (technical political science term for argument) over Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte's statement, in last Monday's Phoenix TV interview, that the US is obliged to defend Taiwan by the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act.

As a very junior Capitol Hill staffer directly involved in the TRA, we can testify that while the Congress of that time (1979) very much wanted to find language as strongly as possible indicating continued US defense of Taiwan, despite "normalization" with the PRC, the compromise hammered out with the Carter Administration contained no such direct pledge, or commitment.

The compromise which, quite literally, was hammered out of State and Carter (you can ask then-Asst. Sec/Asia Dick Holbrooke!) was language authorizing continued arms sales, and language stating that it would be a matter of "grave concern" to the Congress if the peaceful status quo in the Taiwan Strait was put at risk - implicitly by the PRC, was the obvious intent, or understanding at that time.

Note, please, the distinctions about "authorizing" arms sales, and who (Congress) would be concerned about the future of Taiwan.

The interesting wrinkle since 2002, enunciated by then-Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick, Sen. John Warner, then-Rep. Jim Leach, and senior US military officials, is that if the peaceful status quo is threatened or altered by, or due to the actions of Taiwan, that Taipei could NOT count on the US automatically coming to its defense against China.

All this from a Republican administration! We have come a long, long way from the Congress which demanded, and got, the TRA...

Obviously, this underlines the importance of the perceptions game being played. And it's the real point behind all of the warnings from Bush himself, from Wilder, and officials at State, to Chen and the DPP, observers note.

For what it's worth, we suspect that Negroponte made his mis-statement about the TRA from a desire that his otherwise very frank, very harsh criticisms of Chen and the DPP not seem too unbalanced in Beijing's direction.

As Negroponte made a point of reminding China, via Phoenix, Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and it is US policy to desire that Beijing find positive ways to interact with Taiwan, including its politicians and people.

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

Unfortunately Beijing is not interested in dialogue and indeed, has nothing to gain from it. Meanwhile the news out of Australia is that Bush and Hu found common ground in worrying about the UN referendum.

China and the United States found rare common ground Thursday on Taiwan as Asia Pacific leaders converged for a weekend summit set to be dominated by wrangling over climate change and trade.

In face-to-face talks, US President George W. Bush and Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao criticised a plan by Taiwan's president for a referendum on joining the United Nations.

Beijing, which regards Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, fiercely opposes the proposal, and Hu warned Bush that the move could signal a "possibly dangerous" period in the region.

Bush also voiced his concern and the White House pledged to use its influence with Taiwan to try to persuade it to change its mind.

"We also don't want to see this blown up too big," Bush's deputy national security adviser James Jeffrey told reporters.

"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."

Bush and Hu finding common ground? Not a surprise, really.

[Taiwan] [US] [China]