|
US intervened in Jan.
14 election
By Chen Ching-chih 陳清池
Evidence shows that the US government failed to live up to repeated public
statements that it would remain neutral in the Jan. 14 presidential election.
First, in September last year, right after Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) met with US National Security Council
and State Department officials, including US Deputy Secretary of State Thomas
Nides and US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Kurt Cambell, in
Washington, the Financial Times reported an unidentified senior official as
saying that Tsai had left US President Barack Obama’s administration with
“distinct concerns” about her ability to maintain stability in the Taiwan
Strait. The US Department of State immediately made known publicly that this was
not the administration’s view.
The unidentified official has subsequently been identified by observers in the
US and Taiwan as a White House official, and, this official’s talking to
Financial Times has been interpreted by some as an attempt to scupper Tsai’s
presidential campaign.
Later developments have also shown that the US did exercise its enormous
influence to affect the outcome of the election.
Former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) director Douglas Paal wrote an opinion
piece on Jan. 11, titled “Taiwan Election has the US and China on Edge,” for the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he is vice president for
studies.
In this piece, he said, “To reinforce its policy preference, the Obama
administration has successfully approved a US$45.852 billion arms sales package
for Taiwan … arranged visits by American officials of five agencies at
increasingly high levels that had not been seen in more than a decade, and
signaled its intention to admit Taiwan to the valued visa waiver program next
year — all in advance of the election.”
The AIT’s announcement last month that the visa waiver program was nearing
approval was an especially valuable gift to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in the
run-up to the election.
However, the role Paal played a few days before the election is most
controversial. In the above-mentioned article he wrote, “When Tsai was in the US
last September, she suggested vaguely that the four-month interregnum should
give Americans some room to see that she will handle things smoothly.”
“It was this vagueness, however, that prompted administration officials’ doubt
and did not reassure them. Subsequently, officials let it be known widely, but
anonymously, that on the basis of what she had to say, they lacked confidence in
her ability to manage cross-strait relations effectively,” he added.
Apparently not content with having expressed his view in writing, he flew to
Taiwan knowing full well that the presidential election “appeared to be tight.”
On the evening of Jan. 12, Paal talked to a local TV station suggesting that
Washington was unhappy with Tsai and her tougher approach to dealing with China.
He further made it clear that both Washington and Beijing would breathe “a huge
sigh of relief” if Ma were re-elected.
Paal thus rattled Taiwan before the election, according to a New York Times
report on Jan. 13.
The same report also said that Frank Murkowski, the former Republican senator
from Alaska who was leading a delegation of election observers in Taiwan, called
Paal’s remarks “careless,” “irresponsible” and “inexcusable” in a press
conference and accused Paal of deliberately trying to aid Ma’s campaign.
Despite claiming that he did not speak for the US government, Taiwanese
newspapers nevertheless stressed that Paal was a former de facto US ambassador
to Taiwan. Taiwanese voters thus perceived that Paal spoke for the US State
Department.
Although he said that he spoke “when I’m asked to give my opinion,” I would say
he went to Taiwan not so much to observe the election as to make a difference to
its outcome.
Now that Ma has won re-election, it is hard for people to believe the US
government did not appreciate Paal’s efforts to make a difference.
Although there is no way of knowing to what extent the US intervention affected
the election result, the damage was done. In the eyes of many freedom-loving
people, it is clear that the intervention has also tainted the US’
long-cherished reputation for fostering democracy.
Chen Ching-chih is a professor emeritus of history at Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville.
|
