The US secretary of state sounded clearer on the question of Taiwan when he talked to the press three times on a single day, last Monday, in Beijing. But back in Washington on Wednesday, he was vague again.
* In Beijing, he twice indicated to the press that both sides of the Taiwan Straits favor "a peaceful unification" or "reunification" of China".
* But then in Washington, he backed off, picking up the old term "peaceful resolution", saying, "That's the term of art."
* In Beijing, he said "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation."
* Back home, there was not mention of that.
Which Colin Powell shall we listen to? Which one was speaking the mind of the Bush Administration? And how do we understand his "term of art"?
It's rare that a country's top diplomat should clarify and re-clarify a major foreign policy line, while constantly claiming that policy remains unchanged.
He meant to clarify policy, but that policy is now more confusing.
The puzzle remains puzzling. Or a more puzzling puzzle!
Initially, i.e. after hearing his remarks during interviews with Phoenix TV and CNN International in Beijing, most China experts felt that what was strategic ambiguity had given way to strategic clarity. But others still wondered whether he was offering a change of policy or just different wording for the same policy and whether he meant real policy stuff or mere election language.
But when hearing his "term of art" in an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, even those who felt "enlightened" were scratching their heads. More speculations emerged, "He misspoke? Where did he misspeak?"
Among all wild guesses, the following four may sound interesting.
In the first scenario, a Chinese diplomatic analyst described Powell's Beijing remarks as speaking his own mind, rather than that of George Bush, whose official "One-China" policy has remained that neither side should take action to unilaterally change the status quo and they should resume dialogue in the direction of a peaceful resolution – which is interpreted by others as a warning to Beijing against recovering Taiwan by force and to Taipei against declaring independence (provoking war). Professor Shen Dingli, executive vice dean of the Institute of International Studies at Shanghai's Fudan University, believes Powell's new language "reflected his personal sense of frustration and his strong dissatisfaction with the current Taiwan leadership", as Taipei is becoming more and more aggressive in its independence pursuit and constantly challenges the red lines of Beijing and Washington.
However, such an assumption sounds possible but not likely. First, a top diplomat has to be tight lipped on major policy stance before the administration really decides on a change. He has to remain disciplined on the administration track.
A radio person, he is strongly interested in
international relations and Chinese politics. As China is quite often
misunderstood in the rest of the world, he feels the need to better present the
true picture of the country, the policies and meanings.
So he talks a lot and is often seen debating. Then friends and colleagues find
a critical Lin Shaowen criticizing and criticized.
Home
