Testimony of William Kristol
Chairman, Project for the New American Century

Thank you for the invitation to appear at today's hearing marking the 25th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). As members of Congress consider issues relating to China and Taiwan, they might begin by considering something a "senior administration official" said last week about our policy on Israeli settlements and Palestinian refugees. "Eliminating taboos and saying the truth about the situation is, we think, a contribution toward peace. Getting people to face reality in this situation is going to help, not hurt" (Washington Post, April 15, 2004).

This statement applies equally to the Taiwan Strait. America's policy toward Taiwan is ridden with taboos. In fact, one such taboo is the virtual prohibition on questioning whether our interests and those of democratic Taiwan are served by the various communiqués agreed to by Beijing and Washington since 1972. This reluctance to adjust U.S. policy to reflect changes in the strategic and political situation in the region has also meant that the TRA itself - if I am not mistaken - has never been amended.

Today, and in the coming months, we need an honest and public discussion of what we want to happen and not to happen in China and in Taiwan. We have for many years avoided such a discussion. It has been as if Taiwan's survival as a democracy, and, for that matter China's possible evolution into one, are not proper matters of polite conversation. Instead, we have pretended that there can be an unchanging "status quo," that China is not seriously preparing for military action or other forms of coercion against Taiwan, and that Taiwan's people would be amenable to unification if it were handled well.

Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act to avert the worst consequences of President Carter's decision in 1978 to break relations with Taipei, withdraw U.S. troops, and abrogate the mutual defense treaty. The TRA established important principles of U.S. policy - chiefly our insistence on a peaceful resolution of Taiwan's fate, our opposition to aggression, including coercive acts such as boycotts or embargoes, and a commitment to Taiwan's defense through the provision of defensive arms and the maintenance of America's own ability to resist Chinese aggression against Taiwan. As you know, Congress also established a role for itself in providing for Taiwan's defense needs and in determining any response to a danger that the president is required to report under the Act. The "one China" policy and the strategic ambiguity that came to govern U.S. policy are nowhere to be found in the law's text. Yet, as any observer of U.S. China policy knows, the language of "one China" pervades U.S. policy. It is a mantra that every official must intone on virtually any occasion on which China or Taiwan is discussed.

The "one China" policy began as a way to defer the resolution of Taiwan's fate until better conditions for resolving it prevailed. It purposely left the U.S. neutral about the outcome. Unfortunately, the policy has come to mean denying Taiwanese sovereignty and self-determination. Part of the problem is that the arcane and nuanced language that its advocates believe manages a complicated situation - and deters the non-expert from trying to criticize it - does not reflect the changes that have taken place on both sides of the Strait. It also invites constant pressure for revisions from Beijing. For example, over the past year, Beijing has campaigned to bring about a change in U.S. policy from "not supporting" Taiwan independence to "opposing it." Officially, "not supporting" independence remains U.S. policy. This apparent slight difference is actually important. Not supporting Taiwan's independence is consistent with longstanding policy of not predetermining the outcome of discussions or negotiations between China and Taiwan. Opposing independence appears to settle the matter and might give Beijing reason to believe that the U.S. might not resist China's use of force against Taiwan, or coercive measures designed to bring about a capitulation of sovereignty.

At the same time, independence sentiment on the part of Taiwan's people is neither frivolous nor provocative, but rather the natural manifestation of a process that the U.S. has supported. As my colleague Gary Schmitt wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, "Taiwanese identity has grown in direct relation to the progress of democracy on the island. The people of Taiwan increasingly have come to think of themselves as Taiwanese as they have established themselves over the past decade as a self-governing people." Viewed this way, Taiwan's desirable democratic transformation has an unavoidable implication for U.S. policy on Taiwan - not to tilt against independence but toward it.

In short, the "one China" policy expresses neither the situation on the ground in Taiwan, nor U.S. values and interests. No one drafting a new U.S. policy toward Taiwan today would recreate the one the U.S. has pursued since the 1970s and 80s. Ever since its basic premises were set forth, the policy has been under pressure. The reason is obvious: the situation has changed. Taiwan's people have established democracy. More importantly, they no longer claim the mainland or wish to join it. Even the Kuomintang - the Nationalist party - has abandoned its longstanding position regarding unification.

Meanwhile, across the Strait, economic growth has fueled China's military modernization. There are at least 450 missiles pointed at Taiwan, and Beijing is acquiring other capabilities designed to help it take Taiwan, or coerce Taiwan to accept unification on Beijing's terms. China's leaders rely increasingly on nationalism, rather than communism, as the source of legitimacy for the regime. This will become more pronounced if, as predicted, labor unrest, the banking system, and the further collapse of state enterprises become more dire problems.

Future policy on Taiwan should be designed to reflect new realities. In the short term, we can take practical steps that reflect Taiwan's importance as a fellow democracy, maximize its international standing, and improve U.S.-Taiwan defense cooperation.

Bilateral relations

The U.S. should reduce Taiwan's international isolation by increasing high-level contacts. The number of visits to Taipei and to Washington by senior officials should be increased to the point that it is unremarkable.

The administration must soon decide who will represent the United States at the upcoming inauguration of President Chen for his second term. It would be good to send someone of prestige and importance, especially in light of the administration's handling of the congratulations to President Chen on his re-election. This is a perfect opportunity for the administration to signal Beijing that the future of U.S.-Taiwan relations will be more respectful of Taiwan's democratic character. It would help if Washington sent an administration official of high rank from within the Bush administration. Serving cabinet members have visited Taiwan in the past, but none have visited Taiwan since 1998 when Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson was trapped in a high-rise hotel during an earthquake. Why shouldn't the Bush administration send a cabinet officer to represent the U.S. at the May inauguration ceremony?

Washington should also change the way it deals with the president of Taiwan. While the visits of Taiwan's presidents have been increasingly dignified, the ad hoc nature of the policy on visits guarantees intense pressure from China and forces the U.S. to devote unreasonable amounts of effort to placating Beijing. It is frankly absurd that a democratically elected president cannot visit senior U.S. officials or even Washington, but general secretaries of the Chinese Communist Party have been to the White House. Taiwanese officials below the level of the president also need to be able to come to the U.S. and speak freely to the American public and the media. The fact that they do not may not be due to any particular policy directive. However, it is undeniably true that Taiwan's international isolation has created ingrained habits - both here and in Taipei - that are extremely unhealthy and even counterproductive insofar as they prevent a frank sharing of views.

Defense and regional security

After the 1995 and 1996 missile volleys, the U.S. realized we were ill-prepared to coordinate defense of Taiwan with Taiwan's own defense forces. Since that time, we have improved our preparations. These efforts should be continued, enhanced and made as public as possible to underscore our commitment to Taiwan's defense. Greater openness about the nature and extent of America's commitment to Taiwan's defense would help deter Beijing and dispel ambiguity. Such openness would also benefit the people of the United States who, far from fearing America's overseas commitments, understand the importance of America defending democratic allies.

Furthermore, Taiwan is more than just a dependent. It also cooperates with America's security objectives. Last August, on receiving a request by the U.S., Taiwan forced a North Korean freighter to unload dual use chemicals. According to an American official, "we provided the intelligence and Taiwan stepped up to the plate." In short, Taiwan is helping the Proliferation Security Initiative, an effort the Bush administration launched to stop nuclear proliferation. Taiwan should be allowed to join the core group of the PSI, which just recently added three new members. Incidentally, according to the State Department, the PSI is "an activity, not an organization," so the question of statehood for membership is not an issue. By virtue of its democratic character, its strategic location, and its long history of working with the United States, Taiwan's cooperation in regional security is imperative to U.S. interests. There is no reason that Taiwan should not be recognized not only as a participant in PSI, but also in other multilateral discussions, exercises, and operations among democratic countries in Asia.

U.S. efforts to draw Taiwan into the international community should also include a serious initiative to win Taiwan's admission into the World Health Organization, including sponsoring its nomination for membership. Taiwan's exclusion from the WHO vastly complicated efforts to deal with the spread of SARS. No one has forgotten the callous comment of the Chinese ambassador after Taiwan failed to win admission to the WHO as an observer last year: "The bid is rejected. Who cares about your Taiwan?" The Bush administration has expressed its support for Taiwan's WHO membership. China, however, is uniquely talented at using leverage and threats in international fora, and the WHO is no exception. The U.S. and other sympathetic countries need to meet China's ante and raise it.

Finally, a Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Taiwan would fit neatly within U.S. policy to build bilateral trade agreements. The Project for the New American Century held a conference on this idea, and found wide acceptance of the idea within the policy and business communities of both our countries. Politically, the impact would be extremely important.

With regard to China, we need to be quite clear that we expect Beijing not to attack or coerce Taiwan in any way, and that the costs to Beijing of attacking Taiwan would be more than it can bear. We also need to be clear that we look forward to China becoming a democratic country, like Taiwan. Then the people on each side of the Strait can decide their relationship and their future.

When Vice President Cheney visited China last week, he made an impressive speech that spoke about democracy. But the Vice President used one key word that let China know that for now the U.S. does not consider democracy a priority for China. That word is "eventually." Cheney said China's people will "eventually ask why they cannot be trusted with decisions over what to say and what to believe." "Eventually" was used with precision not only in this speech but also in President Bush's widely praised speech establishing democracy as a foreign policy priority to the National Endowment for Democracy last November. America's policy toward China is insuficiently directed toward democratizing China, and so long as that is true it will be more difficult to help Taiwan's democracy survive.

Conclusion

Twenty five years ago, Congress checked the Carter administration's policy on Taiwan. At the time, to quote one scholar, Beijing hoped that the U.S. withdrawal of support "would arouse a sufficient sense of vulnerability within the Nationalist government to make it more susceptible to overtures from the mainland." Beijing decided that "[i]f Taiwan would only bow to Beijing's sovereignty, then the Beijing government would promise to concede a very high degree of administrative autonomy to the Taipei authorities." The famous "one country, two systems" formula that China claims to apply in Hong Kong was originally dreamed up with Taiwan in mind.

It didn't work. Congress acted to pass the Taiwan Relations Act and China set its sights on Hong Kong. Since 1997, it has been quite clear that Beijing is not interested in or sincere about respecting autonomy under a "one country, two systems" arrangement.

Don't misunderstand. America's commitment to Taiwan is admirable. No other country could or would do what the United States has done. At the same time, no other country except the U.S. can hurt Taiwan or weaken it as much as the United States can.

The greatest test is still to come. China is very serious about taking Taiwan, and we have not done enough to dissuade it. Taiwan has transformed itself from a dictatorship to a democracy. That momentous change has very likely increased the chances of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait - not because Taiwan is provocative, but because China cannot abide Taiwan's democratic character and the reality that it has become a separate, self-governing people. That is why U.S. clarity and resolve are so important.

A discussion of these and other issues needs to happen now and yield results right away. The Pentagon has estimated that the balance of forces in the Taiwan Strait will begin to tip in Beijing's favor, perhaps as soon as next year. We need above all, therefore to deter any attack or coercion. And we need to rethink policy constraints developed for circumstances decades ago, while confronting greatly changed and still changing conditions in order to develop a new, sustainable policy for security and democracy in Taiwan and China for the present and future.