Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: Clinton's remarks about Taiwan were 'counterproductive'

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON did a great job representing our country during his time in Beijing. His television and university appearances were exactly what Americans have come to expect from the leader of the world's only superpower. He minced no words when expressing views on human rights, Burma and our disgust with what happened at Tiananmen Square nine years ago.

Our president was magnificent until he arrived in Shanghai and became part of a plan to undercut the Republic of China on Taiwan. I say it was a setup because Wu Xinbo, an American-studies professor at Shanghai's Fudan University, was a last-minute addition to a panel discussion held at the Shanghai Library. His addition was approved by the president's staff.

It was in an exchange with Wu that Clinton talked about his meeting with President Jiang Zemin and said, "I had a chance to reiterate our Taiwan policy, which is that we don't support independence for Taiwan or 'two Chinas' or 'one Taiwan, one China.' And we don't believe that Taiwan should be a member in any organization for which statehood is a requirement." Wu had made possible for Clinton to express publicly, in China, what no previous U.S. president had ever said. The content wasn't new, but the venue and person making the statement was a first.

President Clinton had completed the hatchet job started by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Richard M. Nixon in the same city 26 years ago. Their Shanghai Communique, recognizing their host country as the only "legitimate China," was the first diplomatic knife used to please the mainland government and draw blood from Taiwan. The next diplomatic knife wound was wielded by President Jimmy Carter when he made known that an ambassador wouldn't be sent to nor received from the Republic of China on Taiwan.

I have found little, if anything, to agree with coming from the mouth of GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi during the past year. Two days ago, he referred to Clinton's Shanghai statement about Taiwan as being "counterproductive." Not only do I agree with Lott's assessment, but believe he was rather restrained in his evaluation of the Shanghai policy statement. Other Republicans weren't as kind in their remarks about the Clinton and Wu exchange.

Foreign-policy wonks and scholars weren't surprised by the statement's content, but were shocked it was made in China. Prior to Clinton's departure for China, Taiwan professor Jaw-Ling Joanne Chang wrote a paper titled "Concessions on Taiwan Won't Buy Stability." Dr. Chang's writing recognizes what happened during the visit of President Jiang Zemin at the White House last fall. "During his meeting with Jiang Zemin last October, Clinton made the so-called 'Three No's Pledge,' to China promising 1) not to support Taiwan's independence, 2) not to support 'Two Chinas' or 'One China, One Taiwan,' and 3) not to support Taiwan's membership in any international organization based on statehood. These three pledges were repeated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during her visit to Beijing last April."

So the substance of Clinton's Shanghai remarks were no surprise, but his wisdom in making them is questionable. As Dr. Chang warned, "The Clinton administration may believe that stating acceptance of Beijing's position on these three issues will somehow discourage China's leaders from acting rashly over Taiwan as they did in 1996. However, just the opposite is more likely because the White House is allowing Beijing to drag it step by step into increasingly explicit support of China's agenda toward Taiwan while reducing Washington's room for maneuver in asserting its own long-range interests."

After reviewing exactly what took place in past administrations, it's difficult to find any prior president under similar circumstances making the "Three No's Pledge" to the People's Republic of China on the mainland. Despite what the White House spin doctors say about the president only stating a longstanding policy, this claim is hard to substantiate. That's unless they mean it's a policy that goes all the way back to October 1997 when Jiang and Clinton met in Washington.

When it comes to Taiwan, the little country willing to get involved on our side when fighting Red China in Korea, there's no doubt it was again sacrificed to appease the mainland. It's a real shame that something substantial to promote peace wasn't gained for the island nation. An agreement that the People's Republic of China won't again use military force to intimidate Taiwan, as it did only two years ago, would have been a good start.

This didn't happen, and as Lott says, the Shanghai exchange was, at the very least, "counterproductive."

archive