TAIWAN PLAYING THE AIIB CARD? Taiwan clearly wants to join the next round of TPP negotiations, if/when they get going, and while that obviously would require Taipei finally undertaking ag policy and other reforms its long been aware of and unwilling politically to do...from today's State Dept. brief it would appear that the KMT may think it can dangle possible AIIB membership in front of US policy-makers as a form of "incentive":_______________________
QUESTION: The secretary general of the Chinese communist party, Xi Jinping, just had a meeting with Kuomintang's chairman, Chu Li-luan. I'm just curious about the reaction of the U.S. Government to this highest-levels talks between cross-strait political parties.
MR RATHKE: Well, we welcome steps on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to reduce tensions and improve cross-strait relations. We encourage authorities in Beijing and Taipei to continue their constructive dialogue which we believe has led to significant improvements in the cross-strait relationship. And of course, as to the content and the pace and the scope of those interactions, that should be - it should be acceptable to people on both sides of the strait, but we'll leave those details to the people participating in those talks...
...QUESTION: Yeah. Also Chu Li-luan said he hoped Taiwan can take part in the AIIB, and Xi Jinping welcomes that. So will the U.S. support Taiwan's bid to join AIIB?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have any comment about the decisions of anyone to participate in the AIIB. The U.S. view on the AIIB has been made quite clear. We consider it important that high standards of transparency be part of the AIIB's approach. I think the President also commented on this just last week, so I don't have anything to add to that...
...QUESTION: And Xi Jinping also mentioned that he has seen some new and important point in cross-strait, and which has impacted Chinese nation and the country's future. I just wonder: Does U.S. have the same point of view?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, we welcome improved cross-strait relations. I'm not going to get into kind of characterizing them further than that. We've seen progress and we welcome that and we encourage continued dialogue.
Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Jeff. The '92 Consensus seemed to be the basis for the two sides to actually make the meeting possible. Would the United States think that this may serve as a point of reference for Taiwan's opposition party, the DPP, so that it would be able to open its own dialogue with the mainland some way, particularly when the DPP chair is about to visit the United States? Thank you.
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to comment about how internally these issues are approached. Again, I think our support for improved cross-strait relations is clear.
The claim that Taiwan “causes tension” has a striking uniqueness: In all other instances of tension along the Chinese frontier, U.S. officials and commentators routinely and assumptively treat China as the source of tension. It is only Taiwan that is different. For example, in the late 1960s Beijing suddenly manufactured a historically absurd and legally indefensible claim to the Senkaku Islands of Japan. The U.S. has asserted that it will defend the islands under the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty and criticized China’s illegal air-defense identification zone and other aggressive acts. Nor has the U.S. been shy in criticizing China’s claim to most of the South China Sea, recently offering a highly publicized legal document refuting the Chinese claims. The U.S. also conducts diplomacy with regional powers obviously aimed at countering China. Washington and the U.S. media seldom publicly criticize Japanese, Vietnamese, Malaysian, or Indonesian leaders for resisting Chinese expansion (“causing tension”). Only Taiwan receives that treatment."Clarify your policy!" is of course Diplo-code for "submit." I have this dream that US officials will stop fantasizing that if only they sit on the DPP hard enough, problems in the Strait will go away. The reality is simple: if Washington pleases Beijing by stepping on the DPP, Beijing will respond by threatening to increase tensions to push Washington to step on the DPP even harder. D'oh. Feeding the monster only makes it bigger. Because Beijing seeks to transfer tension from the Washington-Beijing relationship to the Washington-Taiwan relationship, each time an (ex-) US official like Schrage criticizes the DPP, it's a strategic victory for Beijing. Please guys, Beijing already has its own diplomatic corps to suppress Taiwan, they don't need ours.
Cecilia: I just met a wonderful new man. He's fictional but you can't have everything. The 1943 Cairo Communique, worked out by the ROC president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), then-US president Franklin Roosevelt and then-British prime minister Winston Churchill, said Japan should return Taiwan, Penghu and other territories in northeast China that it had “stolen” from the Chinese, Ma said.Ma's claims about Cairo are the more complex of the two sets of claims here, so we'll first look at what Truman said. Ma refers to Truman's "1950" statements in his remarks (see the Taiwan Today piece). In 1950 Truman made two major statements on the status of Formosa. Remarks about the status of Formosa are included in his famous June 27, 1950 announcement:
The Potsdam Declaration of 1945 reaffirmed the Cairo Communique and gave the ROC the right to take sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, he said.
According to Ma, in its Instrument of Surrender, Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and former US president Harry Truman also accepted the idea that sovereignty over Taiwan was settled as the US Department of State said that the US and other Allied powers accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over Formosa, which was surrendered to Chiang.
The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war. It has defied the orders of the Security Council of the United Nations issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area. Accordingly I have ordered the 7th Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The 7th Fleet will see that this is done. The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.However, on Jan 5 of that year Truman issued a statement on the status of Formosa in which he appears to accept Chinese sovereignty over Formosa (extract here).
"A specific application of the foregoing principles is seen in the present situation with respect to Formosa. In the Joint Declaration at Cairo on December 1, 1943, the President of the United States, the British Prime Minister, and the President of China stated that it was their purpose that territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Formosa, should be restored to the Republic of China. The United States was a signatory to the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, which declared that the terms of the Cairo Declaration should be carried out. The provisions of this declaration were accepted by Japan at the time of its surrender. In keeping with these declarations, Formosa was surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and for the past 4 years the United States and other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over the island.It might be possible to read: "...or on any other Chinese territory." as Truman saying Formosa is Chinese territory. To put that in its proper context, the KMT had just retreated to Taiwan in Dec and suddenly, after saying Formosa was irrelevant, the US did an about face and began to prepare a policy that shifted between saying Formosa was irrelevant and that it was important, because it did not appear that the Communist Chinese would have any trouble taking Formosa when they got around to that task -- thus the declared policy of the US was to simply let the chips fall as they may. This Time article from 1951 gives a sense of that. Hence, Truman is not saying that Formosa belongs to China. He is merely announcing that the island was not a strategic interest of the US and that there the US had no dog in that fight and no designs on any Chinese territory, however such territory may be construed.
"The United States has no predatory designs on Formosa, or on any other Chinese territory. The United States has no desire to obtain special rights or privileges, or to establish military bases on Formosa at this time. Nor does it have any intention of utilizing its Armed Forces to interfere in the present situation. The United States Government will not pursue a course which will lead to involvement in the civil conflict in China.
"Similarly, the United States Government will not provide military aid or advice to Chinese forces on Formosa. In the view of the United States Government, the resources on Formosa are adequate to enable them to obtain the items which they might consider necessary for the defense of the island. The United States Government proposes to continue under existing legislative authority the present ECA program of economic assistance."
As to environing international norms, it is sufficient to note that the doctrines of self-determination and the prohibition of use of force for territorial changes, as embodied in many resolutions of organs of the League of Nations, had transformed the component of acquiescence of the indigenous people into a peremptory aspect, and a virtual requirement of lawful transfers of territorial title. Hence, even assuming that the Cairo Declaration, as reinforced by the Potsdam Declaration, had been intended by the parties to it to create new international rights, such an intention would have been limited by international law. Jure gentium, the Cairo Declaration could mean only that the participants agreed to recognize a Chinese acquisition of Formosa if the inhabitants of Formosa indicated that they desired to be part of or to be governed by China.In other words, Cairo, Potsdam, Truman, Mao, whatever is said and done, in the end, no legal transfer of territory can take place without the consent of the population. Even by the norms prevailing in 1943.
The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.The Cairo Declaration is not a treaty and has no force. It is merely a declaration of common aims, subject to any changes the future might bring. The language of the CD was adopted as a sop to keep Chiang Kai-shek in the war. The US clarified its position on Cairo in a statement issued Dec 27, 1950:
With these objects in view the three Allies, in harmony with those of the United Nations at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan.
The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore "Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China." That Declaration, like other wartime declarations such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the United States Government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered. The United States cannot accept the view, apparently put forward by the Soviet government, that the views of other Allies not represented at Cairo must be wholly ignored. Also, the United States believes that declarations such as that issued at Cairo must necessarily be considered in the light of the United Nations Charter, the obligations of which prevail over any other international agreement.That is also the UK position. George Kerr observed:
This [the Cairo Declaration] was not a carefully prepared State Paper but rather a promise to divide the spoils, dangled before the wavering Chinese. It was a declaration of intent, promising a redistribution of territories held by the Japanese. None of the territories mentioned in the document were at that moment in Allied hands.Similarly George Kennen wrote:
No one seems to know from what deliberations this declaration [Cairo] issued; it was apparently drafted, at the moment, by Harry Hopkins, after consultation only with the President and the Chinese visitors.I bet your head is nodding. Chen and Reisman point out two major issues, (1) the norms of the day (paragraph noted above) and (2) the capacity of the participants:
As to the capacity of the declarants, three states were simply not empowered under the principles and peremptory procedures of the Covenant of the League of Nations then in force, to decide that the territory held, and formerly recognized as validly so held by another, could now be forcibly removed from that state.So much for Cairo. The real reason President Ma and other KMT fantasists keep referring to Cairo and to Truman and to Potsdam and the Treaty of Taipei is simple: under the postwar treaty arrangements codified in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan and no recipient is named. Thus, under international law, the status of Taiwan is undetermined. Note that Ma generally omits discussion of the SF Peace Treaty, since to mention it instantly invalidates his case.
Check out this story: Oklahoma Strengthens Relations With Taiwan Province...The state of Oklahoma and Taiwan Province reaffirm their sister-state relationship which has stood for the past 30 years.I have to admit, this exchange has enriched my life with a bit of entertainment. "Taiwan Province Governor Jung-Tzer Lin" is actually the former mayor of Hsinchu, now currently a minister without portfolio. He is apparently head of the Provincial Council which runs the now-defunct government, streamlined out of existence back in the 1990s, all of which are appointees of the President (see Wiki for details -- don't they have that in Oklahoma?). Congrats to Oklahoma for re-affirming its relations with less than a dozen people! I think they should next sign sister-relations with Fujian Province, ROC.
During a ceremony in the Blue Room of the State Capitol Governor Henry and Taiwan Province Governor Jung-Tzer Lin reaffirmed their agreement which promotes trade and friendship.
Governor Henry says last year alone Oklahoma exports to Taiwan came to $16.3 million.
“But that agreement, again, is more than just about trade. That’s been beneficial to both of our peoples, but it has also enriched the lives of both of our peoples.”
President Ma this week once again called on China to remove its missiles facing Taiwan. This occurred during a videoconference at Harvard, a repetition of the very common pattern in which Ma announces outside Taiwan that China should remove its missiles (or makes some other important policy statement to outsiders -- like telling a Mexican newspaper that Taiwan was a region). Remember when, in 2006, he announced in London that China should remove its missiles before any talks could be held, and then he was forced to backtrack? The China Post reports on the latest missilectomy call:President Ma Ying-jeou renewed Tuesday his call for China "to remove or actually dismantle" its missiles targeting Taiwan as a prerequisite for talks on a cross-Taiwan Strait peace accord.It's actually a good example of Ma/KMT cynicism: talks are underway to annex the island through financial and economic integration, as well as the arrival of Chinese workers (see Taiwan News today, and more in Taipei Times tomorrow). So a "peace agreement" is basically superfluous to the reality of creeping annexation; it is a mere diversion. As always, one must watch what elites here are doing, not what they say. This is merely words aimed at placating foreign audiences. If there are real negotiations on missiles, they don't have anything to do with Ma's words here.
Ma also reaffirmed his policy of maintaining the status quo across the strait, saying the conditions are not yet ripe for unification.
He made the remarks in response to questions on cross-strait relations, during a video conference linking Taipei with Harvard University faculty and students.
According to Ma, Taiwan is well aware of China's ambition to annex Taiwan, but it has to face up to the reality, try to temper cross-strait tensions and prevent China from using force against Taiwan.
"We also demand that the mainland should remove or actually dismantle all the missiles that are targeted against Taiwan.
Otherwise we won't be interested in making further step to negotiate a peace agreement with them," the president said.
Taiwan officials say China has aimed from 1,000 to 1,500 short- and mid-range missiles at the self-ruled island, which Beijing has claimed as its own since the Chinese Civil war of the 1940s.Nicely nuanced "...since the Chinese Civil War of the 1940s." Apparently it is possible to describe the situation pithily without the historically inaccurate "split in 1949" formulation so beloved of AP and AFP. Reuters says it is possible that trade might be harmed by Ma's call for missiles to be removed, although trade rose steadily under the DPP despite their much more pro-Taiwan cross-strait policy.
Here is the text of the State Department memo, written by Charles Freeman, who was then heading up the China Desk, on what to do about the ROC after we recognized China in 1979. Note how point (2) simply follows the Beijing line that there are no Taiwanese and makes the aborigines disappear entirely. Pay attention to point (6) as well. Freeman would move on to doing business with China, eventually securing an appointment on the board of a Chinese state-owned oil firm, before becoming the victim of a mindless right-wing AIPAC assault following Obama's appointment of him for the NIC position, as readers may recall.
There's been much written on potential Obama policies here in East Asia, and the international media today focused on two small indicators. The first was Treasury nominee Tim Geither, who claimed that China was manipulating the yuan, and said that is what the President believed. Does that mean a new hard line on China? Probably not, since we are now 7 or 8 presidents into our engagement with China, and most have made similar noises, yet the sacrifice of long-term US strategic and economic interests to short-term business interests and the failure to push for democracy in China has continued unabated. This "hard line" is strictly for media consumption. It will have no effect on actual policy.Wow! Taiwan can observe an assembly! A breakthrough!The administration of US President Barack Obama will continue to support Taiwan’s efforts to gain more international space, including becoming an observer at the World Health Assembly (WHA), US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a recent statement.
The statement was made in response to an inquiry from senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Johnny Isakson of Georgia on Clinton’s stance on Taiwan’s WHA bid if she was confirmed as Washington’s top diplomat.
My thanks go out to both of them.Two important Taiwan experts based in Washington have added their names to the open letter published in the Taipei Times earlier this week expressing concern about what they see as an erosion of justice in Taiwan.
The new signatories are former deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Randall Schriver and George Washington University academic Michael Yahuda.
In the original letter a group of international academics and writers urged President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to order an independent inquiry into the way police squashed protests during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).
Indeed, Mr. Bush can boast in foreign affairs that he has established a vastly improved relationship with China. But it will take major and continuing efforts in both Beijing and Washington to keep that relationship from deteriorating during 2009 as economic stress builds.Yes, well, that "improved relationship" came at the expense of Taiwan. It's easy to sacrifice old friends to make new friends -- real success would have been improving relations with China while not sacrificing Taiwan.
The Bush Administration issued the annual State Department guidelines for official interaction with The Beautiful Island, reported the Taipei Times today....Contacts between US diplomatic personnel and Taiwanese officials and representatives abroad would be strictly limited under new guidelines the State Department has issued that appear to tighten the curbs on bilateral interaction that the department set down in government-wide prohibitions last issued in 2001, a copy of the new guidelines obtained by the Taipei Times on Monday showed.
The guidelines, which are believed to have been issued last week, go as far as barring any US official from writing a note or letter to any Taiwanese official, and banning US officials from attending Taiwanese events or entering official Taiwanese premises.
It appears that the timing of the new guidelines is related to the upcoming celebration of the Double Ten anniversary, and to remind US overseas personnel what they can and cannot do or say.
For instance, the guidelines commit the US to a so-called “one-China” policy, a phrase absent in the 2001 guidelines, which were issued shortly after Bush entered the White House as an ardent supporter of Taiwan. Even personal thank-you notes must be written on plain paper and put in plain envelopes to disguise the sender’s official identity.
The guidelines also ban the display of the ROC flag on US premises, which is a no-no absent from the 2001 guidelines, and bar Taiwanese military personnel from showing up in their uniforms.
The new document also contains a new section on US non-support of Taiwan’s membership in international organizations, such as the UN, which require internationally recognized statehood for membership.
The Globe and Mail is doing a set of pieces on the major world flashpoints. Among them is of course the Taiwan Straits, portrayed here as made dangerous by the recklessness of the dastardly Chen Shui-bian. It's a good thing those forces for stability, restrained and prudent, are there to keep Mad Chen© in check! On to the fun....It's a highly volatile mixture of ingredients: a fast-rising superpower, a rebellious island, an arms race, duelling missiles, claims of independence, and a spate of high-profile political events that could trigger a reckless reaction.
China and Taiwan have been preparing for war for years, building up their arsenals of missiles, fighter jets, naval ships and other weapons. China has close to 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwanese targets and the number is constantly rising. Taiwan has its own missiles ready to hit China, including its recently developed Brave Wind cruise missile, capable of striking Shanghai and other Chinese targets.
The rhetoric on both sides has been ferocious. China's military often threatens to use force to prevent Taiwanese independence. Beijing has passed legislation to authorize violence against Taiwan if necessary. Taiwan's pro-independence President, Chen Shui-bian, has infuriated Beijing with his frequent talk of sovereignty.
Tensions have been high for years, but 2008 could be the most dangerous year of all. It is filled with potential trigger points, including two Taiwanese elections, a controversial referendum, the final days of Mr. Chen's presidency and the Summer Olympics.
Beijing is enraged by the referendum because it implies another step toward Taiwan's formal independence. China has recruited Washington to urge Taipei to cancel the referendum, yet Mr. Chen has vowed to push ahead with it, partly because it would help to galvanize his supporters and draw them to the ballot box.
For Beijing, the nightmare scenario is a victory by Mr. Chen's candidate in the presidential election and a victory for Mr. Chen in the referendum. "Beijing's reaction will be the million-dollar question," said Chao Chien-min, an expert on cross-strait relations at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. "The Taiwanese government has been warned over and over of the dangers, yet it chooses not to respond," he said. "They will do anything to win the election. Beijing is worried that the situation will get out of hand."
Beijing's nemesis, Mr. Chen, must step down when his term expires in 2008. But he will remain in office for two months after the presidential election. And if he is energized by victories by his pro-independence party in the presidential vote and the referendum, he could seize the opportunity to take a bigger leap toward independence, perhaps on the assumption that China will not dare to launch a war in the final months before the Beijing Olympics. (China, meanwhile, has warned that it is willing to take military action against Taiwan in 2008 even if it means sacrificing the Olympics.)
"I think there is a real danger of miscalculation on both sides," Mr. Chao said. "Both sides don't really understand the true feelings of the other. There's a huge gap of misunderstanding. The people of Taiwan don't really sense the danger of the referendum because we're so accustomed to the name Taiwan. And China, for its part, doesn't realize that the referendum is only domestic politics with little to do with sovereignty."
Susan Shirk, a former official in the U.S. State Department, has recorded in detail how a small incident in Taiwan could quickly escalate into a global crisis. In a book published this year, Ms. Shirk outlines one of the most likely scenarios that could lead to disaster.
The crisis would begin with an accidental collision between a Taiwanese jet and a Chinese jet in the Taiwan Strait. The news is quickly flashed around the Chinese Internet, and the pressure of public opinion compels China's leaders to respond aggressively. China's army is mobilized and Chinese students march in the streets, demanding military action against Taiwan.
Jerome Keating reminds that Sec Rice's comments that the referendum is a "provocation" may be responded to at the following email addresses:Dear Secretary Rice:
Like many Americans living in Taiwan I think your recent statement is a provocative action. It unnecessarily raises tensions between the democratic ideals Americans cherish and the policies of your administration. The statement promises no real benefits on the international stage for the people of either America or Taiwan. Or even China.
The moment was not worthy of you, Ms Rice. History has recorded your name already as a crucial player in the advancement of democracy. You were your country's Russia expert during the fall of the Soviet empire. The people of central and eastern Europe did not achieve peaceful liberation from their nightmare because you or your boss sent mixed messages from your side. The motto then was peace through strength, not status quo.
Responding to Rice, Chen said the referendum was an engagement the government had made in response to the request of the people.
"The referendum comes from the bottom up, from the 23 million people of Taiwan. The people took the initiative to make the proposal and enthusiastically put their signatures on the petition to sustain the referendum," Chen said.
The always insightful Ting-i Tsai has a commentary in the Asia Times on the recent decision by the US to take a step back on the referendum. He argues that the US has reluctantly decided to live with it:Burghardt's approach, which deviated from that of other US officials in recent months, may have signaled that Washington has reluctantly decided to change course after concluding that its efforts to compel Taiwan's ruling party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), to drop the referendum were futile.
Washington now appears willing to "tolerate" the referendum but is hoping to encourage its failure so that it will not be over-interpreted with expansive and elaborate statements on what the referendum means.
Some US-based analysts believe that Burghardt's comments reflected a shift in attitude, prompted by Washington's realization that it could not have high expectations that Chen would drop the referendum.
Bonnie Glaser, senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she sensed that Washington had shifted to acceptance of the referendum after a meeting with a senior US official a few weeks ago.
The view is echoed by Richard Bush, former chairman of the AIT and director of the Washington-based Brookings Institution's Center for Northeast Asian Policy Study. "The attitude [of Washington] has been shifting for some time," Bush said, as the US government has known for a while that the chances were pretty low that the DPP would abandon the referendum.
The train of US officials speaking out against the referendum reached another high with Sec. Rice herself labeling it "provocative" in remarks yesterday, the day after she received a letter from two Congressmen asking the Administration to stop this unseemingly behavior. The BBC reports:At an end-of-year news conference at the state department, Ms Rice said: "We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy.
"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."
Beijing has attacked the referendum, calling it a precursor to attempts to declare independence.
It has consistently threatened to use force if that happens.
Max Hirsch of Kyodo News, consistently one of the best reporters on the island's affairs, has another insightful piece on the emerging importance of Japan in the domestic political battle here. I've been observing over the last couple of years how Japan's Taiwan policy has undergone a shift in response to China's challenge to Japan, a very favorable shift for Taiwan. Hirsch's piece elaborates on how this has affected Taiwan's internal struggles. Interesting bits highlighted (now in the Japan Times):Such is the significance of Japan to Taiwan's Mar. 22 presidential election, in which tacit support from the vital trading and strategic partner could make or break the diplomacy platforms of Ma and Hsieh. Hence, Japan has emerged as a key battleground in the political fight for Taiwan's top job, as both frontrunners scramble to curry favor with Tokyo.
''Obviously...both candidates put Taiwan-Japan relations front and center in this race,'' says Andrew Yang of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies, a Taipei-based think tank.
Concern in Tokyo over whether Taiwan's next president will ''exercise an independent voice'' for the island ''while avoiding miscalculations with Beijing'' is behind Tokyo's keen interest in the race, Yang says.
Taiwan's growing interest in Japan, meanwhile, is obvious.
Amid booming trade and tourism links, Japan's importance to Taiwan on security hit a zenith in 2005, when Tokyo joined Washington in referring to Taiwan as a ''common strategic objective'' -- a veiled reference to likely intervention by the United States and Japan in a Taiwan Strait conflict.
China views Taiwan as a breakaway province that must be united with the mainland, by force if necessary.
Beijing's threats to attack the island have spurred Hsieh to capitalize on Japan's 2005 statement -- issued by then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi -- by seeking U.S.-style security guarantees from Tokyo during his trip.
However, fears abound in Taipei that the current prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda -- known for his ''China-friendly'' stance -- will back off of commitments to the island to soothe Beijing.
''We have a poster of Junichiro Koizumi tacked up in our office, but not of Prime Minister Fukuda,'' says DPP Legislator Hsiao Bi-khim, who serves in Hsieh's campaign and runs foreign affairs for the DPP.
''It's not that we don't like [Fukuda]; it's just that we connect more with leaders like...Koizumi,'' she adds.
All the more reason, then, for Ma and Hsieh to court Fukuda's administration. Bullish economic ties further explain why wooing Japan is more important in this race than in past races.
Taiwan's trade with Japan, for example, totaled nearly US$63 billion last year, a record high allowing Japan to overtake the United States as Taiwan's second largest trading partner, after China. Taiwan for its part ranks fourth among Japan’s trading partners, while the two exchanged some 2.3 million tourists last year -- another record high.
That both frontrunners sent their running-mates to the United States on goodwill visits before visiting Japan themselves, undermines another piece of conventional wisdom -- that Washington mainly arbitrates the island's geopolitical fate.
Finally, from a blogger where the south polar star is found comes this tale of growing Chinese influence in the Cook Islands....Given the paucity of news in New Zealand media about events in our South Pacific neighbours, unless it is about coups, riots or cyclones, I’m not surprised there has been virtually no news here about the wonderful benevolence of China in the Cook Islands. But I am surprised there has been no coverage whatsoever here of the farewell speech given in Rarotonga a few days ago by the departing New Zealand high commissioner John Bryan, which received considerable publicity in the Cooks because of his candid thoughts on the China connection. It’s not as if our media did not know he was leaving – they have been speculating he will be replaced by NZ First MP Brian Donnelly.
As the daily newspaper, the Cook Islands News, put it, career diplomats seldom express their views on important issues in public, so Bryan’s comments were all the more remarkable and worthy of reporting by the New Zealand media.
“People are saying there is no such thing as a free lunch so what do the Chinese want in return for the assistance they are providing?” Bryan said. “There are lots of ideas floating around, including them wanting access to Cook Islands fishing grounds, the establishment of a fishing fleet in the northern group and the facilitation of migrants. May be there is an ounce of truth in that.”
But what John Bryan believes to be China’s main interest is the Taiwan issue. There is great rivalry between China and Taiwan, the province that broke away after Mao’s communists took over the mainland in 1949 and which was recognised by most Western countries as the “official” China until the early 1970s. Some countries still recognise Taiwan rather than China, including Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands in the Pacific. Almost unnoticed by the New Zealand media, China and Taiwan have been quietly competing for influence in the region, in much the same way, though not as nakedly, as Japan has been trying to buy the votes of Pacific nations at the International Whaling Commission. This makes it all the more disappointing that the New Zealand media missed John Bryan’s speech.
Let me report what he said: “I think it comes down to the bitter rivalry that exists between China and Taiwan in securing diplomatic recognition across the Pacific. China advocates, and most members of the United Nations agree, that Taiwan is still a legitimate province of the mainland. Taiwan likes to think they are ‘autonomous’ and can operate accordingly. Several Pacific nations agree with them and they all have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. China would, of course, prefer these countries to respect the one China policy and they continue to try and persuade them to change allegiance. Some argue that this situation is the cause of what is commonly referred to as ‘chequebook diplomacy’ in the Pacific, where the one with the highest financial offering tends to win the battle for diplomatic recognition. Naturally China is concerned that the Pacific island countries that currently support China, including the Cook Islands, might also be courted by Taiwan and be persuaded to change diplomatic recognition. That is why I think they are enhancing their relationship with the Cook Islands and offering tangible assistance. Also, China sees the Cook Islands as having a very good reputation in the region and that they might have the ability to influence those Pacific countries who currently acknowledge Taiwan to change their diplomatic position towards China.”
This is important stuff indeed. An almost unnoticed battle between Taiwan and China for diplomatic influence in our own backyard. These views are presumably what John Bryan was reporting back to Wellington, and what would have been reported from our other diplomatic missions in the region. The Cold War is long over, thank goodness, and China is our friend. But so is Taiwan. We have excellent relationships with both, and we are seeking a free trade deal with China, the first it is likely to sign with a Western country. This makes activities such as China’s and Taiwan’s in our region of more than passing interest, as we could easily be caught up in them. As reported last Sunday by The Hive, Niue has established diplomatic relations with China despite New Zealand being responsible for Niue’s foreign affairs. The Taiwan issue is apparent there, too.
John Bryan’s opinions are of somewhat greater importance than what Lucy Lawless, Hollie Smith and Marcus Lush emote about whales, which the capital’s morning paper saw fit to make its page one lead yesterday. It would be nice to see his cogent, relevant views also get an airing in the mainstream media.
Tom Tancredo's (R-COL) office just forwarded me a copy of his latest effort on Taiwan's behalf: a joint letter of Tancredo and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to Sec of State Rice asking the Administration to stop its interference in Taiwan's elections. Go Tancredo! Here's the letter in its entirety:"One or two public statements would be quite sufficient to convey the Administrations position to Taiwan’s elected officials on this matter. It is not necessary to continue dispatching an endless parade of U.S. officials to denounce and attack the proposal over a six month stretch while parroting the terminology used by the Chinese Foreign Ministry."
