Dec. 7,2000 --- To: Trent Lott, Denny Hastert, George W. Bush

[ Up ]

Dear　Mr. Trent Lott,
　　　Mr. Denny Hastert,
　　　Mr. George W. Bush,

A U.S. decision to waive sanctions against mainland China for exporting missile technology shows the two countries are eager to keep their shaky relationship on track into the next U.S. administration, analysts said.

The United States said it would lift sanctions on Beijing imposed over sales of nuclear-capable missile technology to Pakistan and Iran, in return for a Chinese pledge to step up its curbs on sensitive exports.

But while letting Beijing off the hook, Washington announced it was imposing restrictions on Iran and Pakistan for purchasing the technology.

“The United States is trying to improve relations with mainland China as the end of the Clinton administration is approaching,” said Brian Bridges, an expert on Asian security at Hong Kong's Lingnan College.

This is just the latest in a series of moves aimed at keeping ties stable and reasonably friendly during the precarious transition from one U.S. administration to another, he said.

As heads of states from the Asia-Pacific region met in Brunei last week, Beijing officials got repeated reassurances from U.S. delegates that U.S. policy on Taiwan would not change, regardless of who becomes president.

The U.S. decision to scrap sanctions --- which is likely to mean the green light for U.S. satellite launches from mainland China --- was given after Beijing promised to keep a closer eye on missile-related exports.

“China has no intention to assist, in any way, any country in the development of ballistic missiles that can be used to deliver nuclear weapons,” said foreign ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi.

“China will, based on its own missile non-proliferation policy and export control practices, further improve and reinforce its export control system,” he added.

Sun said Beijing would issue a comprehensive export control list of missile-related items, including dual-use technology.

Some analysts doubted if a promise by Beijing would achieve anything, give its past record of selling sensitive technologies to rogue states in Asia despite repeated official denials.

“Chinese pledges are not worth the breath they are spoken in,” said Richard Fisher, a senior fellow with the Washington based Jamestown Foundation and a critic of the current U.S. administration’s engagement policy with Beijing.

Last year, the U.S. National Intelligence Council said it had concluded beyond a doubt that Beijing had transferred nuclear-capable M-11 missiles to Pakistan early in the ‘90s.

And suspicions of continued Chinese aid to “countries of concern” in Asia are still lingering.

But even if Beijing’s new pledge does not have the force of law, it could be a crucial first step towards making Beijing a more active participant in efforts to curb proliferation.

“It’s not that the whole problem has been solved,” said Robert Karniol, the Bangkok-based Asia-Pacific editor of Jane’s Defense Weekly.

“But if you can get a first commitment on the part of the Chinese, then you have a starting point.”

At the same time as the United States erased sanctions against Beijing, it sharpened restrictions against Islamabad, banning exports of some technologies to the Pakistani defense ministry, its Space and Upper Atmospheric Research Commission and related units.

As Pakistan is a buyer of missile technology, not a supplier, this could signal a change in the U.S. approach towards non-proliferation, analysts said.

“It might be the United States is shifting its focus from the supplier to the receiving end,” said Bridges from Lingnan College.

But others argued there was little apparent logic in the decision to punish Pakistan and Iran and not mainland China.

“Sanctioning Pakistan without sanctioning China is like punishing the soldier without punishing the general,” said Fisher of Jamestown Foundation.

For the majority KMT, which was ousted from half a century’s rule of Taiwan in the March presidential election, the Constitution clearly provides for “one China” and the China referred to here is the ROC that was created in 1912. And when it comes to addressing relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the KMT, as well as the other two opposition parties, have been following a “one China, two different definitions” stance, a deliberately ambiguous policy devised to avoid direct confrontation with Beijing.

But for the ruling DPP, the Constitution with the many times of amendments it has undergone over the last 10 years, Taiwan has now become a separate sovereign state whose official name is the ROC, thus making the originally constitutionally defined one single China no longer relevant.

Therefore, the advisory group’s proposal for Chen to deal with the “one China” dispute with Beijing according to the ROC Constitution runs short of an unanimous consensus or a creative formula that would enable him to resolve the quarrel without undermining Taiwan’s own political sovereignty.

One of the other recommendations appeals for “the PRC and the ROC” to negotiate a peaceful agreement. The way the appeal was made, however, looks like an intention to treat Taipei’s relationship with Beijing as between two separate nations.

Such a policy, lacking the KMT’s deliberate ambiguity in handing cross-strait relations, is unlikely to be accepted by Beijing. As such, the call for an agreement to end hostilities would lead nowhere.

The third recommendation calls for the Chen administration to set up a new institution or revamp the existing one in favor of continuing to consolidate public opinion and the views of various political parties about “national development and cross-strait relations,” is unlikely to have a chance of success either.

President Chen has yet to publicly comment on the advisory group’s recommendations. He might need time to hear more public views before making any decisions, particularly on the proposal regarding the question of how to respond to Beijing’s demand on the principle of “one China.”