Taipei Must Keep Pace with Beijing-Washington Dialogue, But Need Not Choose Sides

Taipei Must Keep Pace with Beijing-Washington Dialogue, But Need Not Choose Sides
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 15, 2013 

Summary: Taipei must change its strategy and tactics. Destructive confrontation with Beijing is not the way. Blindly accepting concessions is not the answer. Beijing and Washington are interacting. Taipei is happy to see further improvements in Beijing-Washington relations. Taipei has no need to choose sides. It must consider the long term interests of the Republic of China as a whole. It must also consider how Chimerica, i.e., (Mainland) China and the US, and Chiaiwan, i.e., (Mainland) China and Taiwan are evolving. It must improve cross-Strait relations in step with Beijing-Washington relations. This is the correct approach.

Full text below:

Strategic and economic dialogue are different. Beijing-Washingto strategic dialogue first began in August 2005. Then US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and Mainland Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo initiated the dialogue. Their aim was to maintain and expand bilateral cooperation, and to promote Asian-Pacific and world peace. Their focus was to expand dialogue and increase trust. They hoped to increase consensus, cooperation, coordination, and consultation. Beijing-Washington strategic economic dialogue began in December 2006. Then CCP Vice Premier Wu Yi and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson presided. They discussed commercial aviation, services, banking, securities, the RMB exchange rate, energy, environmental protection, trade and investment, food safety, and international economic and trade cooperation.

Bush administration neoconservatives harbored powerful hostility towards the Chinese mainland. It perceived the PRC as a strategic competitor. It opposed strategic dialogue. It only tolerated dialogue between senior officials. It was overtaken by later developments. In 2009, the Obama administration combined strategic and economic dialogue into one. This represented a major change in US thinking. For two days, beginning on July 10 of this year, the two sides held their fifth meeting in Washington. Senior officials from the two sides carried out strategic and economic dialogue. Mainland Chinese representatives included Vice Premier Wang Yang, and State Councilor Yang Jiechi. United States representatives included Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew. Each time many high-ranking officials participated. Each time they addressed a wide range of issues. As we can see, Beijing-Washingto relations are complex and diverse. Both sides attach great importance to the dialogue.

Senior Obama officials say the dialogue is one of the critical tasks in the Washington's "Asian-Pacific rebalancing strategy." The dialogue continued in California a month ago, when the Obama and Xi Jinping summit engaged in additional in-depth discussions. Strategic issues addressed included North Korean nuclear weapons, Syria, Iran, regional security, and human rights. Economic issues addressed included Mainland Chinese exchange rates and interest rates. Washington hoped to discuss market mechanisms and financial reforms. U.S. officials mentioned another concern -- protection for US "intellectual property rights." The U.S. is concerned about pirated software. It is concerned about the theft of trade secrets. The issues discussed were largely the same as in the past.

As Taipei sees it, Washington has agreed to continue bilateral strategic and economic dialogue. That means Beijing-Washington relations have undergone more than a quantitative change in direction. They have undergone a qualitative change as well. America can no longer ignore or oppose the growth of the Chinese mainland. It can no longer successfully "contain" Beijing. Secondly, Washington will strive to develop a constructive and friendly relationship with Beijing. It will enable the Mainland to play a proportionate, reasonable, and responsible role. It will enable the Mainland to further integrate itself into international society and adopt international norms of conduct. The current priority is to increase strategic trust and transparency, and through a variety of mechanisms, to discuss and solve problems. The two governments differ on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. They have different political and economic systems. They are at different stages of development. Therefore they face different structural problems. Competition between the two remains unchanged.

As this newspaper recently reported, the recent strategic and economic dialogue was heated. During his opening speech, Vice President Joe Biden blasted Beijing, saying it must cease "blatantly stealing" U.S. intellectual property on the Internet. To everyones' surprise, Biden also demanded that Beijing respect human rights, and accept international human rights norms. He said this is where the Chinese Communists and the US differ. PRC Vice Premier Wang Yang however, responded calmly. He said "(Mainland) China and the U.S. are like a married couple. A divorce could be very costly." He said "In the past we blasted U.S. imperialism. The U.S. called us Communist bandits. But the facts have shown that continued dialogue between the two is a blessing. It is advantageous to world peace and development." Perhaps Biden was talking to US listeners back home. Perhaps it was part of his strategic negotiating strategy. But the United States' arrogance is hardly worth emulating.

The outside world cannot help wondering whether freedom, democracy, and human rights are a moral value for the United States, or merely a political tool? Take the Edward Snowden case. The U.S. government is "crying thief while engaging in thievery." In the name of fighting terrorism, it is infringing upon the sovereignty of other countries. It is trampling over the privacy and human rights of its own citizens. Yet it dares to accuse others of Internet spying. If the United States attaches such great importance to democracy and human rights, why does it adhere to such double standards? Why does it engage in such gross violations of human rights in other countries? Why is it so indifferent to such violations? Over the years, the U.S. has incited countles conflicts the world over, from Egypt to Syria, from the Middle East to Central Asia's color revolutions. Have any of these countries become better? Has the United States acquired more friends, or more foes?

Finally, the Chinese Communist regime is implementing reform and liberalization. Unless this changes, unless economic growth stagnates, social unrest spreads, and Beijing-Washington relations go from cooperation to confrontation, then Mainland China will continue to grow substantially. Its international influence will increase significantly. Taiwan's international influence will decrease significantly. This is due to changes in the tripartite balance of power between Beijing, Washington, and Taipei. It is not the result of war. But our government must change its strategy and tactics. Destructive confrontation is not the way. Blindly accepting concessions is not the answer. Beijing and Washington are interacting. Taipei is happy to see further improvements in Beijing-Washington relations. Taipei has no need to choose sides. It must consider the long term interests of the Republic of China as a whole. It must also consider how Chimerica, i.e., (Mainland) China and the US, and Chiaiwan, i.e., (Mainland) China and Taiwan are evolving. It must improve cross-Strait relations in step with Beijing-Washington relations. This is the correct approach.
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.07.15
社論－跟著中美對話連動 台灣沒有選邊問題
本報訊

    　其實，戰略與經濟對話原本是兩件不同的事情，中美戰略對話最早始於二○○五年八月，由當時的美國副國務卿佐立克與中共外交部副部長戴秉國展開，目的在於保持、擴大雙方的合作，促進亞太和世界的和平，重點在於深化對話與互信、希望增加共識、擴大合作、加強協調與磋商。而中美經濟戰略對話則始於二○○六年十二月，由當時的中共國務院副總理吳儀和美國財政部長鮑爾森主持，討論包括航空、服務、銀行、證券、人民幣匯率、能源、環保、貿易投資、食品安全及國際經濟合作等具體經貿問題。

    　布希政府時期，由於其本人和新保守主義分子對中國大陸懷有強烈敵意，一度還把中共視為戰略競爭者，對兩國之間的戰略對話不表認同，只准使用資深官員對話一詞。事過境遷之後，歐巴馬政府於二○○九年開始將兩者合而為一，這代表美國思維的一大轉變。今年七月十日起一連兩天，中美雙方高層在華府舉行第五次的戰略與經濟對話。中方由大陸副總理汪洋、國務委員楊潔箎領軍，美方則由國務卿凱瑞、財政部長李烏率隊。由每次對話人員之多、級別之高、議題之廣可以看出，中美雙方關係的複雜多樣，雙方對此對話機制的重視。

    　歐巴馬政府的資深官員說，這項對話是美國「亞太再平衡」策略的關鍵工作之一，這次對話延續了歐巴馬與習近平一個月前加州峰會的主題，要進行更深入的討論。在戰略部分，議題包括北韓核武、敘利亞、伊朗、區域安全以及人權等。在經濟部分，美國關切大陸的匯率與利率，要和中方討論市場機制、金融改革等議題。美國官員並指出，美國關切的另一議題是智慧財產權保護，美國在意的不只是盜版軟體，也包括網路竊取商業機密。討論議題其實和過去大同小異。

    　從台灣的角度來看，我們認為，首先，美方同意持續雙邊戰略與經濟對話，這就意味著中美關係已由量變往質變的方向發展，美國不再能漠視大陸成長的事實，或仍以對抗、圍堵的方式對待北京。其次，美國將努力與中共發展建設性的友好關係，讓大陸扮演其力所能及、合理、負責任的角色，將其進一步融入國際主流社會，接受國際行為規範。當前重點在於加強戰略互信及透明度，透過各種機制嘗試討論和解決問題，不過，兩國在人權、民主、法治等價值觀，不同政經體制、發展階段有異方面存有結構性的問題，雙方互相競爭的本質不變。

    　根據本報日前來自華府報導，本次戰略與經濟對話美方一開始就火藥味十足，副總統拜登開幕演說指出，北京應停止在網路「公然竊取」美國智財權行為。除此而外，拜登也要求中共尊重人權，接受國際人權規範，並說這正是中美兩國差異之所在，而中共副總理汪洋則緩頰說，「中美像夫妻，離婚代價大」，「過去我們罵美國美帝，美國罵我們共匪諸如此類。但事實證明，長期對話對兩國不僅是幸事，也有利世界和平發展。」即或拜登談話有內政或談判策略之考量，但美國一幅盛氣凌人的樣子實在不足為訓。

    　於此，外界不禁要質疑的是，美國到底是把自由、民主與人權當成工具或價值？就以史諾登案而言，美國政府自己做賊喊捉賊，以反恐之名侵犯了別國主權、自己國民的隱私和人權，居然還敢振振有詞的指責別國進行網路駭客行為。如果說美國一向重視民主與人權，但為何常常又是雙重與多重標準，對某些國家違反人權的舉措有時嚴加指責，有時無動於衷，這些年來，美國在世界製造了多少紛爭，從埃及到敘利亞，由中東到中亞的顏色革命，這些國家有無變得更好，美國是朋友或敵人變得更多？

    　最後，我們要強調的是，除非在可預見的將來，中共政權的改革開放政策發生重大變化，經濟成長停滯，社會動盪，中美關係由合作轉為對抗，在中國大陸綜合國力已然大幅成長，國際影響力大增的情況下，台灣的影響力和價值可能受到嚴重衝擊。雖說這一切都是中美台三方實力對比變化所致，非戰之罪，不過政府也確實必須隨之調整戰略與策略，破壞衝撞固非正道，一味容忍退讓恐怕也不是辦法。在中美互動的過程中，台灣樂見中美雙方關係的進一步改善，台灣沒有選邊與否的問題，我們除了考慮中華民國的利益與整個民族的長遠發展之外，也該思考如何將Chimerica（中美）的發展趨勢與Chiaiwan（兩岸）雙邊關係的改善連動處理，這才是一個正確的作法。