The Bush Administration’s potentially effective stances are rarely underscored by executive rhetoric, and the problems of China are usually viewed by Americans as quiet, far-away tiffs- a perception unchallenged by the Administration. The worst indicator: problems between Washington and Beijing are handled by low-level diplomats instead of the decorous and well-stationed envoys that have, in the past, been more effective if only for their placatory pomp. For a nation that thrives on respect, station, and tradition, Wen Jiabao needs to know that China’s actions register more than a blip on George Bush’s radar. With Russia and India prioritized above the People’s Republic, that message is a weak one.

As the status quo festers and the US loses its ability to project influence across the Pacific, we risk both appearing a casual intervener, which undermines any perceived national interest that could bulwark America’s word in China, as well as the increased influence of other players in the region. To take one recent example, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin visited Beijing late last week and expressed France’s support of China’s extraordinary anti-secession law, which undeniably and forebodingly harkens back to the formative years of the United States of America. It permits China to go to war against Taiwan if it formally declares independence. At the same time, Raffarin repeated his old refrain that the European Union’s arms embargo must end. “Discriminatory,” he called it. And on the eve of these overtures, two major Chinese airlines: China Eastern and Shenzhen, signed deals for fifteen Airbus planes.

There could be immediate fruit born of abandoning Taiwan; this cannot be denied. Realists might argue that grandstanding against Communist China on the Taiwanese soapbox is an unnecessary hindrance for American companies (like Airbus’ competitor) as well as for diplomacy, where China is an important friend in the debate on North Korea. But while acquiescence to Communism is a net negative for America, giving in via the desertion of a brother in the “Great Experiment” is worse.

China’s anti-secession law states in Article 4 that, “Accomplishing the great task of reunifying the motherland is the sacred duty of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.” Stateside, it is common parlance that our sacred duty is to uphold the tenets of liberal democracy, for both America’s economic gain and our private security, as extending the reach of freedom is the only long-term solution for true national security. We have done so in Taiwan, a nation nudged to democracy and which has reaped great rewards for placing trust in the governed. Fundamentally, the charge of the American people- and passed on to the Taiwanese- conflicts with Beijing’s anti-secessionist dicta. And clearly, Washington has a place in this debate that it refuses to occupy. It is at least noteworthy that, in response to Raffarin’s support for the Chinese assay-to-war, the State Department said, “I don’t have any comment on what the French position is on the Anti-Secession Law. What I can talk about is our position. And I think we’ve made our position clear.” Is this the way the United States has parried French assertions in the past?

The unwillingness to vocally support a ‘One China, One Taiwan’ policy extends deeper. Diplomats shift blame for the policy to the Taiwan Relations Act. Condoleezza Rice did the same just a few weeks ago in China, where she said, “I reiterated that the United States does, in fact, have a ‘One China’ policy…that also recognizes American obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act.” And although President Bush occasionally describes China and Taiwan as “two countries” in passing, the same bold rhetoric with which Mr. Bush is so comfortable in speeches on the Middle East falters when the subject turns to Asia. This is ironic, for the broad policy is the same: the United States seeks to project freedom and democracy throughout the world and Washington increasingly prefers to deal with free nations and free men.

[Original publication: 2005-04-27 17:07:40]