In Following the China-US Dialogue, Taiwan Has No Need To Pick Sides

For all practical purposes, the [China-U.S.] strategic and economic dialogues were originally two separate matters. The Sino-U.S. strategic dialogue first began in August 2005, initiated by then-U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo. Its goal was to maintain and expand bilateral cooperation, fostering peace globally and in the Asia-Pacific region. Its emphasis was on deepening dialogue and mutual trust in hopes of elevating consensus [and] expanding cooperation while strengthening coordination and consultation. The China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue, meanwhile, began in December 2006 and was hosted by then-Vice Premier of China Wu Yi, along with U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Topics featured include aviation, services, banks, securities, the exchange rate, energy, conservation of the environment, trade and investment, food safety, international economic cooperation and other specific economic and trade issues.

Under the Bush administration, this writer and other neoconservatives harbored strong animosity toward mainland China and even considered Communist China a strategic competitor at one time. We objected to the bilateral strategic dialogue and only allowed it to be described as a senior official dialogue. With the dust settled from this episode, the Obama government combined the two dialogues into one starting in 2009 and thus signaled dramatic changes in U.S. thinking. Starting on July 10 for two back-to-back days, senior Chinese and American officials hosted their fifth strategic and economic dialogue in Washington D.C. The Chinese delegation was directed by Vice Premier Wang Yang and State Councilor Yang Jiechi; the Americans were led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew. From the multitudes of officials, ranks and topics that come with each dialogue, one can discern the complex and diverse nature of China-U.S. relations and the importance attached by both sides to the dialogue.

Seasoned officials from the Obama government say that this dialogue serves as one of the critical pillars of America’s Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy. This dialogue is an extension of the California summit last month between Obama and Xi Jinping and allows for deeper discussion of topics discussed previously. With regard to the strategic aspect, topics include the North Korean nuclear crisis, Syria, Iran, regional security and human rights. Of particular consternation on the economic front to America is China’s exchange rate and interest rates. The U.S. wanted to discuss matters such as market mechanisms and financial reform with China, with American officials pointing out that the U.S. was also concerned about protection of intellectual property rights. America had also been following the topic of software piracy closely along with Internet theft of trade secrets. But in truth, topics now being discussed are largely similar to ones talked about in the past.

From the perspective of Taiwan, we think, first of all, that U.S. willingness to continue bilateral strategic and economic dialogue implies that relations with China have shifted in a qualitative, not quantitative, direction. America can no longer disregard the reality of China’s rise, nor engage in confrontation or containment of Beijing. What’s more, the U.S. will strive to develop constructive and friendly relations with the People’s Republic and allow the mainland to play, insofar as it is capable, a reasonable and responsible role. Such will further integrate China into the mainstream international community and confine its behavior to global norms. The current priority is to strengthen mutual strategic trust and transparency while attempting to discuss and resolve issues through various mechanisms. However, the values placed on human rights, democracy and the rule of law differ between both countries, much in the way that both countries’ political and economic systems and stages of development differ from each other, thus presenting structural problems [for the relationship]. The natural tendency for mutual competition between the two countries remains unchanged.

As this paper reported from Washington a short while ago, this round of strategic and economic dialogue saw America leaping into offense mode from the start. Vice President Joe Biden said in his opening remarks that Beijing should halt its brazen theft of U.S. intellectual property rights through the web. In addition, Biden requested that China respect and conform to international human rights norms, adding that this is where the countries differ from each other. Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang tried to strike a conciliatory tone, saying that “China and the U.S. are like a married couple. A divorce could be very costly … In the past we blasted U.S. imperialism. The U.S called us communist bandits. But 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 Americans back home, or maybe it was part of his strategic negotiating strategy. But American arrogance is hardly worth being imitated elsewhere.

The broader world cannot help but wonder if the U.S. considered freedom, democracy and human rights as its moral values or only a political tool. Take the Edward Snowden case, for example, where the U.S. government is a thief crying thief. America is infringing upon the sovereignty of other countries in the name of the war on terror and tramples over its citizens’ privacy and human rights, yet dares to accuse others of Internet spying. If the country really valued democracy and human rights, why then does it adhere to such double standards? Why has it taken to engaging brazen violations of human rights in other nations, and why is it so indifferent to such violations? America has incited countless conflicts across the world throughout the years, from Egypt to Syria, from the Middle East to Central Asia’s color revolutions. Have any of these countries made a turn for the better? Has America acquired more friends or foes?

One last point that we have to stress is that China’s regime is reforming and liberalizing itself. Unless this status quo changes in the near future with a scenario in which economic growth stagnates, social unrest spreads and China-U.S. relations go from cooperation to confrontation, then the mainland can only continue to grow substantially. Its international influence will rapidly follow suit on an upward trajectory, while Taiwan’s influence and worth may be harshly impacted in an adverse way. Even though this is attributed to changes, not due to warfare, in the tripartite balance of power among Beijing, Washington and Taipei, our government must change its strategy and tactics. Destructive confrontation is not the right path to tread on, while blindly accepting concessions is also not the answer. Beijing and Washington have been talking to each other, and Taiwan will be glad to see further improvements in China-U.S. relations. Thus, Taipei has no need to choose sides, but must holistically consider the republic’s long-term interests. It must also consider how to take developments in Chimerica (China and America) and improving Chiaiwan (mainland China and Taiwan) relations to improve its calibrations and better cross-strait relations in step with Sino-American relations. Such is the right approach.