For American diplomacy to be successful, it must reflect the
values of the American people and all who aspire to freedom
throughout the world. President George H. W. Bush learned this the
hard way with his "Chicken Kiev" speech in the Ukraine 13 years
ago, and Secretary of State Colin Powell may be finding it out now
with Taiwan.
On Aug. 1, 1991, President Bush arrived in the crisis-wracked
Soviet city of Kiev as tens of thousands of Ukrainians waved signs
reading "The Evil Empire Lives" and "53 million Ukrainians demand
independence." Long-oppressed peoples in the Baltics, the Ukraine,
and the Caucasus demanded independence from Moscow, and Gorbachev
tried to assuage them with a "Union Treaty" granting greater
autonomy.
The elder Bush feared the independence sentiments that threatened
the Soviet Union's stability. When he addressed the Ukrainian
parliament that day, he cautioned that "freedom is not the same as
independence; Americans will not support those who seek
independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local
despotism."
Ukrainians from Kiev to Chicago were outraged. President Bush's
words strayed so wildly from America's traditional support for
freedom in the Soviet Union's "captive nations" that columnist
William Safire dubbed them the "Chicken Kiev" speech. The name
stuck.
On Oct. 25, 2004, Secretary of State Powell made what might be
called his "Kung Pao Taiwan" speech in a misguided - and ultimately
unsuccessful - attempt to curry favor with his hosts in
Beijing.
Perhaps Powell hoped to encourage Taiwan's people to forswear
"independence" from Communist China - even though they quietly seek
to prevent a "far-off despotism" from replacing their local
democracy. Quite a difference.
Sitting in Beijing's China World Hotel, speaking first to Hong
Kong's Phoenix Television and then to Mike Chinoy of CNN, Secretary
Powell delivered a vision for relations between Taiwan and China.
On Phoenix TV, he urged that "both sides should...move forward
toward that day when we will see a peaceful unification." In his
interview with Mike Chinoy, Powell said, "we [presumably the United
States, not he and the Chinese foreign minister] want to see both
sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual
outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking."
Whether Powell was prevaricating or being disingenuous - or had
been badly briefed about Taiwan - is unclear. But it is a fact that
Taiwan emphatically does not seek eventual unification. Indeed,
Taiwan's antipathy to unification has grown dramatically following
the unhappy reunion of Hong Kong's incipient democracy with
established Chinese despotism.
Although the State Department spokesman insisted in Washington that
U.S. policy had not changed - and though the American
proto-ambassador in Taipei, Mr. Douglas Paal, insisted to his
Taiwanese counterparts that Powell really meant "resolution," not
"reunification" - there was no attempt to rectify another of
Powell's gross misstatements.
Powell added insult to injury when he averred to his Hong Kong
interviewer that "there is only one China," that "Taiwan is not
independent," and that "it does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation,
and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
Unless Powell seeks to change policy, then he was wrong again. The
United States has never taken the position that Taiwan does not
"enjoy sovereignty as a nation." The United States has been very
careful for over 50 years not to take a position at all on the
matter of Taiwan's sovereignty.
While there may well be only "one China," that "one China" doesn't
necessarily include Taiwan. And while the United States may not
recognize the "Republic of China" (the official name of the regime
in Taipei) as the Chinese government, the United States treats the
Taipei government as an independent country for all intents and
purposes.
One simple reason for this is that Section 4(b)(1) of the Taiwan
Relations Act, passed by Congress in April 1979 after President
Jimmy Carter broke relations with Taipei in favor of Beijing,
states clearly: "Whenever the laws of the United States refer or
relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or
similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall
apply with respect to Taiwan."
As a matter of policy, therefore, the United States does not
accept China's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. In September
1982, the State Department wrote Sen. John East that "the United
States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty."
In his "Six Assurances" to Taiwan President Chiang Ching-kuo on
July 14, 1982, President Ronald Reagan promised that the United
States "had not changed its long-standing position on the matter of
sovereignty over Taiwan."
And what was that long-standing position? The State Department
informed the U.S. Senate in 1970 (that's right, in 1970) that, "as
Taiwan and the Pescadores are not covered by any existing
international disposition, sovereignty over the area is an
unsettled question subject to future international resolution." It
is an important footnote of history that even while the Republic of
China's government-in-exile maintained its provisional capital in
Taipei, the United States did not recognize that Chinese
government's sovereignty over Taiwan. (The U.S. only recognized
"the Government of the Republic of China as legitimately occupying
and exercising jurisdiction over Taiwan....") And the United States
does not recognize China's sovereignty over Taiwan today - unless
Secretary Powell's words were intended to change that
position.
Powell's deafness to this reality is only one disturbing element of
"Kung Pao Taiwan."
It is unsettling for the United States to be seen siding with an
arrogant, belligerent, and aggressive Communist dictatorship
against any democracy. But Taiwan isn't just any democracy: It has
been one of America's staunchest allies - despite the 1979 break in
formal diplomatic relations. Over the past 16 years, Taiwan has
been the biggest purchaser of U.S. defense services and equipment,
even bigger than Saudi Arabia or Israel. Taiwan is America's
tenth-largest export market. Taiwan has Asia's fifth-largest
military and Asia's second-largest merchant-marine fleet (after
China's). And with the approval of long-range radar systems for
Taiwan's army, the island could potentially be a vital link in
America's global missile-defense architecture. It is the world's
17th-largest economy (on par with Russia's), and has nearly twice
the population of Australia. The State Department also acknowledges
that Taiwan is the third-largest contributor to Afghan
reconstruction. Taiwan gave $150 million to U.S. efforts in the war
on terror, refugee and victim relief, and Afghan reconstruction
since the 9/11 attacks - and at Washington's request, it has seized
dangerous chemical cargo from a North Korean ship, something no
other U.S. partner except Japan has been willing to do.
Yet somehow Secretary Powell has been persuaded that democratic
Taiwan's interests can be sacrificed to the warlike threats of
Communist China.
In the end, the August 1991 "Chicken Kiev" speech backfired.
Gorbachev's Union Treaty was designed to loosen the republics'
federation with Moscow, and President Bush thought he was doing
Gorbachev a favor by trying to steer the Ukraine away from
independence and toward the Union Treaty. But 17 days later,
long-grumbling Soviet military hardliners were emboldened by the
U.S. president's explicit opposition to "independence," and at long
last launched a coup against Gorbachev and his Union Treaty.
Likewise, in the end, Powell's ill-considered disdain for the
sovereignty of the Taiwanese people will bolster a mandate to
consolidate Taiwan's status quo as a country that has been
"independent" of China for over 55 years.
Some administration officials even marvel that "at least Kissinger
would have gotten something in return," but Powell seems to have
gotten nothing from China for his swipe at Taiwan. China
disregarded Powell's blandishments to pressure North Korea, China
ignored Powell's call to start talks with Taiwan, and China
stonewalled Powell's call for a security dialogue at the upcoming
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit
Two years from now, "Kung Pao Taiwan" will be seen as the
beginning of a major strategic error reverberating across Asia. It
did not dampen - but instead fed - China's belligerence, and it
undermined the most important element of American foreign policy -
that it reflect the values of the American people.
John J. Tkacik Jr. is a research fellow in the Asian Studies
Center of The Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in National Review