Taiwan reels from Powell's
anti-sovereignty 'goof' By Laurence
Eyton
TAIPEI - Taiwan is still recovering from
something approaching a collective heart attack over
remarks made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell in
Beijing this past week. Powell was in the Chinese
capital principally to urge China to put pressure on
Pyongyang over its nuclear-weapons program. While there
he gave interviews to two cable TV networks, CNN
International and China's Phoenix TV, at Beijing's China
World Hotel.
Most of the interviews consisted of
the familiar retread of the US "one China" policy.
Powell's interpretation of this policy, as set out in
the Three Communiques signed with China in the 1970s and
early 1980s (defining their relationship), tends to be
the most conservative of anybody's in the current US
administration - he sticks most strictly to the letter
of the documents.
In general, therefore,
Powell's saying anything about Taiwan usually annoys a
large swath of opinion on the island, if only because
the Communiques, in as much as they address Taiwan at
all, uphold a view of Taiwan-China relations that might
have been acceptable to dictators in Taipei and Beijing
at the time, but about which the Taiwanese themselves
were never consulted, and which now is seen as hugely
anachronistic.
This time around, however, was
something special. In interviews on Tuesday, Powell
spoke in unusually harsh terms on the topic of Taiwan's
sovereignty. "Taiwan is not independent. It does not
enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our
policy, our firm policy," he said.
In Taipei
this was regarded as the harshest, most decisive
expression of this principle made for some time, at
least during the administration of US President George W
Bush. And it was a remark that managed to annoy just
about everyone, irrespective of where he or she stood on
the political spectrum.
After all, the
fundamental divide in Taiwan, between unificationists
and Taiwanese-independence seekers, is an argument about
eventual goals; it is not an argument about current
status:
The unificationists think Taiwan is a truncated
remnant of the Republic of China, founded in 1912, whose
government was forced to move to Taiwan in 1949. Just
because the land area it controls might be smaller and
the government has moved does not mean that the pre-1949
sovereign state ever went out of business, and the world
should recognize this. The communists, by founding a new
country in 1949, have in effect created two current
Chinas, and the world needs to accommodate itself to
this reality.
The independence lobby maintains that Taiwan was
never returned to China by treaty after the end of the
Japanese colonial era, that it was illegally occupied by
the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, or KMT)
regime until the early 1990s, when democratic elections
were held, in effect constituting an act of
self-determination that established a new and sovereign
country.
The current Democratic Progressive
Party government tended to take a middle course between
these two positions, but if there is one thing that all
sides are agreed upon it is that the Taipei regime is
independent and sovereign. So Powell's denial of this
managed to raise hackles everywhere, much to the
detriment of some important US plans (which we will
address below).
But it was Powell's subsequent
remarks that left Taiwan in a state of shock. "We want
to see both sides not take unilateral action that would
prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all
parties are seeking," Powell told CNN.
The
problem here is twofold. While it might have been true
at the time the Three Communiques were negotiated that
both governments sought unification, the people of
Taiwan were never asked if unification was something
they wanted. And in fact they overwhelmingly don't want
it. The most recent poll by Taiwan's Mainland Affairs
Council - the government ministry that deals with China
policy - indicates that fewer than 2% of Taiwanese want
unification now and only about 11% want it at all. (This
is compared with 6% who want a formal declaration of
independence immediately and 18% who want it some time
in the future.) Forty percent of all Taiwanese prefer
the status quo now/decision later option, while18% want
the status quo to last forever.
So, apropos of
Powell, one simple fact is that not all parties are
seeking unification. Forty-three percent of Taiwanese
(pro-independence plus pro-status quo forever) don't
want it at any price and another 40% don't even want to
consider it until China has changed into a democracy -
the essence of the status quo now/decision later
position.
But there is another problem on top of
this, which is that it is a long-held US position that
it does not take sides on any particular outcome in
negotiations between Taiwan and China, nor does it act
as a mediator; it only insists that the issues between
them be solved peacefully. And yet Powell's remarks
suggest that the United States does in fact favor one
particular outcome - reunification - and, of course,
that just happens to be the outcome least favored by
most Taiwanese.
Opinion in Taiwan on Tuesday
after Powell's remarks was running red-hot. Foreign
Minister Mark Chen told legislators, "The US has told us
not to give them surprises, but this time it is the US
giving us a surprise. This is unfair. Taiwan and the US
share the same interests and we should build mutual
trust. But Powell's talk has breached mutual trust."
Not only that, but it has damaged US interests.
Washington, concerned that Taiwan is falling behind as
China's military budget soars, has been trying to
persuade Taiwan to purchase an US$18 billion arms
package for almost three years. A bill for the budget is
currently in the legislature, where it has been held up
by the opposition, which claims that the weapons are
outrageously expensive and not what Taiwan needs. The
government has been trying to get the bill through the
legislature before it takes a month off to campaign for
elections on December 11. Tuesday was the last chance to
send the bill to committee. No sooner had Taipei
received the news of Powell's interview than the
opposition simply refused to deal with the bill, which
means it is suspended at least until January and, unless
the pro-government parties win the majority in the
legislature they now lack, it may simply be dead.
The opposition is widely portrayed by the
pro-government side as not wanting the weapons because
it simply does China's bidding, and naturally China is
against the package. But Powell's remarks might have
turned the opinion of a dangerously large number of
pro-government supporters against the bill.
A
woman in a coffee shop told this reporter on Tuesday
evening: "I used to see the arms deal as something like
paying protection, but their weapons probably don't work
- at least Patriot [anti-missile defense system] - and
[I thought] they will help us out if we need it. But
after this, they can forget their weapons. Why should we
spend the money when the future has been decided
anyway?"
A newspaper editorialist remarked:
"Look, the last thing the US needs if it wants to be a
power in this region is Taiwan controlled by China. You
would think Powell, as an ex-general, would know that.
So maybe we should offer China a confederation deal and
use of the Tsoying naval base [Taiwan's biggest base,
situated in Kaohsiung]. The Americans and the Japanese
would wet themselves. They obviously need a sharp
reminder where their strategic interest lies."
Since Tuesday, in fact almost since the CNN
broadcast, the US has been trying to put things right.
The State Department said the same day that Powell had
not meant "reunification" - that was a slip of the
tongue. What he had meant was "resolution." Wednesday
saw the Taiwan Foreign Ministry summoning US
representative to Taipei Douglas Paal, a man before whom
it usually quails, to "clarify the US position". Paal
said the US position hadn't changed but he could not say
why Powell had used the word "reunification". A clearly
still very angry Foreign Minister Mark Chen later said
that Powell's remarks had damaged Taiwan's democracy and
hurt its status, and he demanded a US restatement of the
"Six Assurances".
The Six Assurances, enunciated
on July 14, 1982, made clear that the United States:
Had not agreed to set a date for ending arms sales
to the Republic of China on Taiwan.
Had not agreed to hold prior consultations with the
Chinese government on arms sales to the Republic of
China on Taiwan.
Would not play any mediation role between Taiwan and
China.
Had not agreed to revise the 1979 Taiwan Relations
Act.
Had not altered its position regarding sovereignty
over Taiwan.
Would not exert pressure on the Republic of China on
Taiwan to enter negotiations with the People's Republic
of China.
Currently the situation is that both
the United States and Taiwan know that Powell goofed
badly. The US wants to pass it off as a simple slip of
the tongue. But Taiwan is well aware that China is
likely to ignore a denial and make as much hay from
Powell's remark as it can. Indeed, on Wednesday Zhang
Mingqing, spokesman for the Chinese government's Taiwan
Affairs Office, told a press conference, "Some people
have said Powell made a slip of the tongue, but I don't
believe it."
Taiwan well knows that in this
game, something once said can be used and exploited,
even if it is was said by accident. It can only be
negated by categorical denial as part of a restatement
of policy. This is why it wants a restatement of the Six
Assurances, so the lasting impression is not that the US
favors reunification but that the US will not play a
role and does not favor any particular outcome. The US
is reluctant to make Powell look foolish. It will be
interesting to see who prevails.
Laurence
Eyton is the deputy editor in chief of the Taipei
Times newspaper and a columnist for the Chinese-language
Taiwan Daily. He has lived and worked in Taiwan for 18
years.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
