It’s More Like a Change in Posture

Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui raised a lot of eyebrows--and Beijing’s ire--when he declared that Taiwan’s relations with China should be viewed as “country-to-country, or at least as special state-to-state relations.” Many have taken Lee’s statement, made in an interview with a German radio station Saturday, as a provocative departure from Taipei’s long-standing “one-China” policy. But the statement reflects more a change in posture than in policy toward the Chinese mainland.

Lee broke new ground by being the first president of the Republic of China on Taiwan to publicly describe Taipei’s relationship with Beijing as “state-to-state.” Past references have usually been couched in innocuous terms like “two co-equal political entities.” Even if a departure from past practice, Lee’s remarks are a more accurate reflection of current reality than the strained fancy of “one-China,” and represent a legitimate basis for eventual reunification with the mainland.

A more complete translation of Lee’s statement reveals the context within which his remarks were made. When asked to respond to Beijing’s continued reference to Taiwan as a renegade province, Lee said, “Ever since the constitutional revisions of 1991, cross-Strait relations have been classified as country-to-country, or at least a special state-to-state relationship, as opposed to an internal ‘one China’ relationship between a legal government and a renegade group, or a central government and a regional government.”

In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek’s ROC government lost the mainland, retreated to Taiwan and has governed the island ever since. For 30 years the U.S. officially entertained Taipei’s fanciful notion that it was sovereign over all of China. Since 1979, the U.S. has entertained Beijing’s equally fanciful claim that it is sovereign over all of Taiwan.

As long as both Beijing and Taipei claimed that Taiwan was part of China under one (albeit differently defined) China, both parties and the U.S. could pretend they had a “one-China” policy. This all changed in 1991, as President Lee said, when Taipei ceased to claim sovereignty over all of the mainland.

While Beijing portrays Lee’s remarks as further evidence of his sympathy for Taiwan’s independence, and American officials anxiously await Lee’s retirement to the golf course next spring, both fail to answer the question President Lee raises: What is the nature of Taipei’s current and future relationship with Beijing?

As uncomfortable as Lee’s remarks may be for some, they reflect truth. And truth is a stable foundation on which to build a common future. Officials on all sides of this problem need to face the reality that a country that is not divided does not need to unify.

Taiwan is not a renegade province but an economy based on free-market principles, a government that is democratically elected, and a society that has evolved separately from the rest of China. In this regard President Lee’s remarks are a welcome provocation; even if his remarks’ substance does not represent a significant departure from his government’s policy since 1991, there is a difference in the directness and tone of his comments. Some may wonder why Lee would raise these issues in this manner now, at a time when U.S.-China relations are already strained and nationalism is on the rise in Beijing.

Perhaps Lee’s remarks are designed to position his party favorably in negotiations with the mainland when People’s Republic of China representative Wang Daohan arrives in Taipei in October, and in the upcoming presidential election in Taiwan next March. No future president is likely to hold the mandate Lee possesses. He is the first native Taiwanese and first directly elected president of the Republic of China. He already holds an honorable place in history, but charting a future course for relations with the mainland will be his legacy--for good or for ill.

By staking out a strong position, Lee has invited world leaders to recognize the magnitude of the challenge facing both sides of the Taiwan Strait.