Advertisement
Advertisement

Gambling with war and peace

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian is in a tight race for re-election on March 20. In part to energise his supporters, he has proposed two referendums on that day in order, he says, to deepen Taiwan's democracy and protect its 'national sovereignty'.

Beijing, meanwhile, sees the referendums as the first step in a calculated, three-year timetable for establishing Taiwan's juridical independence that, the mainland says, would trigger the use of force. Given US involvement in Taiwan's security, this raises the prospect of a Sino-American war - potentially even nuclear war.

Mr Chen claims his goal, like that of US President George W. Bush, is to preserve the 'status quo', and he says the US president supports him. At the very least, this is misleading.

For over 30 years, the US has worked to advance relations with Beijing for reasons of fundamental national interest, while protecting Taiwan against forced reunification. Washington has assiduously stayed out of the controversy over Taiwan's sovereignty, focusing on the maintenance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. To do this, every president since Richard Nixon has acknowledged the mainland's claim that Taiwan is part of 'one China'. While not embracing that assertion, the US has agreed not to support outcomes that conflict with it, such as 'one China, one Taiwan' or 'two Chinas'. Though less than optimal for the US, the mainland or Taiwan, that stance has allowed all three to advance their interests without having to confront the contradictions - and risks of armed conflict - inherent in the competing claims. And within this framework, Taiwan has developed from a poor, authoritarian society into a prosperous democracy.

Now, while Mr Chen may avoid declaring independence in so many words, he seeks to 'consolidate' what he calls Taiwan's existing 'sovereign, independent' status. This contrasts sharply with the US view that preserving the status quo means ensuring not only that Beijing does not use force to achieve reunification, but also that Taipei does not provoke war through unilateral challenges over Taiwan's sovereign status.

Polls have consistently reflected the pragmatism of Taiwan's people in supporting the status quo rather than directly challenging Beijing over independence in ways that could threaten the very basis of Taiwan's free and flourishing existence. However, Mr Chen is currently appealing to the gut political aspirations of most people on the island, urging them to vote with their hearts, not their heads.

He is assuming that somehow, - presumably factoring in the threat of American military intervention - the worst will not happen. This is an unacceptable gamble with their future and ours.

After a rocky start, the Bush administration has, overall, steered an admirably balanced course through the dangerous political shoals of the Taiwan Strait. The US has strongly backed democracy in Taiwan, including referendums on strictly local matters.

But the current proposals by their very nature - regardless of their wording - ultimately involve questions of war and peace. While Washington is concerned about the mainland's missile build-up opposite Taiwan, it has sought to discourage the referendums as unnecessarily provocative and as ineffectual for dealing with those missiles.

Mr Bush tried quiet diplomacy, but Mr Chen ignored even his personal appeals. Consequently, in a highly unusual move, the president publicly criticised the Taiwanese leader in mid-December. But rather than weighing how seriously he was mismanaging relations with Taipei's main supporter, Mr Chen sought instead to quell US criticism.

He did this by changing the wording in the referendums, so that they ostensibly promote measures favoured in Washington, such as increased defence spending and cross-strait dialogue. But the US saw the proposed votes as unnecessary for taking decisions on those issues and, after again unsuccessfully trying a low-key approach, eventually began to question publicly what constructive purpose these referendums served. Still Mr Chen claimed - and claims - that the US appreciates his efforts and supports the referendums.

It is important to respect Taiwan's democracy and the people's right to vote on any issue. And Washington should maintain scrupulous neutrality in Taiwan's presidential election. But in light of the risks the current trend creates for US national security interests, it is time to be more direct. US views should be made clear, minimising any chance of miscalculation or later recriminations about the consequences of current steps for future US-Taiwan relations and cross-strait stability.

The US still hopes to avoid commenting on the substance of cross-strait sovereignty issues. But Mr Chen's continuing efforts may eventually force Washington to openly reject his definition of the status quo. For now, at a minimum, the US should state unambiguously that these referendums are unhelpful and potentially dangerous. We owe our friends in Taiwan - and ourselves - no less candour than that.

Alan Romberg is senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Centre, a non-partisan think-tank in Washington. He is author of Rein In at the Brink of the Precipice: American Policy Toward Taiwan and US-PRC Relations

Post