US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has a big mouth, and she has put her foot in it many times over the years. She did it again last month when she dismissed the need to push Taiwan issues during her maiden voyage to Beijing as the US’ top diplomat.
Speaking to reporters in Seoul just before she flew to China, Clinton made it clear that Taiwan, along with Tibet and China’s human rights violations generally, would be lost in the shuffle as she and Chinese leaders talked about other things.
She would not press China on Taiwan and the other areas of disagreement between Washington and Beijing because “we pretty much know what they’re going to say,” she told the reporters traveling with her around East Asia.
“We know what they’re going to say because I’ve had those conversations for more than a decade with Chinese leaders, and we know what they’re going to say about Taiwan and military sales, and they know what we’re going to say,” she said.
Underscoring the point, she asserted that “pressing on those issues can’t interfere with” the other items on her agenda: the global financial crisis, environmental issues, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea.
It is true that all of those other issues are make-or-break crises for the US, China and the rest of the world and deserve priority. No question about that.
But ask people in Taiwan whether they feel that their welfare, their future, their security and their health are matters that merely “interfere” with the US’ other concerns.
It may be true that Clinton has spoken with Chinese leaders over the past decade. But in what capacity? As a senator from New York? As a former first lady?
It is one thing to talk to them as a representative of Brooklyn and Buffalo, but it is quite another to speak as the top foreign policy representative of the US and its president.
Former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell also knew what China would say about Taiwan during their meetings, but they never dismissed Taiwan’s interests and security publicly because of that. To do so, they well knew, would be interpreted by the Chinese leaders as signals of backsliding on Taiwan, which could be used in Beijing’s propaganda against Taipei.
But Clinton does not have either of her predecessors’ experience or gravitas. She is, after all, a politician who is a novice at the international diplomacy game. She was chosen by US President Barack Obama as much for her political clout, especially among women’s groups, as for her global issues skills.
We are told by sources with insights into the State Department’s East Asia bureau that after she uttered her remarks and they were reported in the media, Clinton immediately realized that she screwed up, to borrow Obama’s expression. She did not mean to belittle Taiwan or leave Taiwan to the wolves, department officials have said to others.
She did not mean “Who cares?” about Taiwan, Tibet or human rights, they said. They added that her comments were parallel to her statements during the trip that economic sanctions against the repressive Myanmar regime have not worked and that a new approach is needed.
What such a new approach would mean in terms of Taiwan is not at all clear.
Nobody in Washington expected any new developments on the Taiwan issue during Clinton’s trip. So many Taiwan supporters in Washington were not particularly disheartened by Clinton’s offhand remarks on Taiwan.
“The US will always be there for Taiwan,” one of Taiwan’s leading supporters in Washington said this week.
Clinton’s trip neither “alleviated nor added to” the concerns over Taiwan policy in the Obama administration, he said.
Observers say there will be no return to the Taiwan policy of Clinton’s husband and former president, Bill, many of whose policies were distasteful to Taiwanese as he pushed to improve relations with China amid strained cross-strait relations.
But Obama’s administration is piled high with former Clinton administration Asia policy stalwarts, who presumably hold much the same ideas they did when they helped establish that earlier policy. One would hope that they have matured since then.
Taiwan and the world have yet to see what the current president, and the current State Department under Clinton, have on their plate as they decide on actions crucial to the fate of Taiwan and its people. Stay tuned.
Charles Snyder is the former Washington correspondent for the Taipei Times.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is