Abstract

President Chen Shui-bian made three proposals when he spoke via satellite before a World Federation of Taiwanese Associations meeting in Tokyo on August 3, 2002. He called for “Taiwan going its own way,” “one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait,” and “a plebiscite law.” These three points form what is commonly known as Chen’s “one country on each side” doctrine, which has aroused serious concerns both at home and abroad.

To ease the concerns, President Chen asked Chang Chun-hsiung, secretary-general of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, to make a clarification. Chang stated on August 6 Chen’s proclamation of “one country on each side” was taken out of context and might be misunderstood. “I believe,” Chang said, “a theory of equal sovereignty is a more accurate interpretation of what the president said, for Taiwan is an independent, sovereign state, whose name is the Republic of China.” Chen also sent Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of the Mainland Affairs Council, to the United States to explain the Chen doctrine.

Washington’s official response was quick. After meeting with Tsai, Sean McCormack, a spokesman of the National Security Council, had the following to say: "It's our understanding that the authorities on Taiwan have publicly emphasized that Chen Shui-bian's August 3 remarks were not a call for independence ... and we certainly take those assurances at their face value." In a joint news conference with Jiang Zemin, President George W. Bush said the United States does not support Taiwan independence and called for peaceful resolution of the disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. 

Comments from the American media included: No strong reaction from Beijing (Christian Science Monitor, August 7), worst time for making the remarks (Washington Times, August 14), and possible damage to the Washington-Beijing-Taipei triangular relationship (National Review, August 15).

The reaction of U.S. scholars was mixed. While Prof. June Dreyer of the University of Miami held the view that there was no need for Beijing to overreact in that President Chen had simply stated a fact of two separate political entities, Prof. Nancy Tucker of Georgetown University warned that the U.S. government might change its attitude toward Taiwan as some key Bush aides were beginning to question Chen's credibility.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a press conference in Beijing on August 26 that Washington does not support independence for Taiwan. While Taiwan is “one of the questions” where Washington and Beijing “have a difference of opinion,” the U. S. approach to relations with Taiwan “is based on our One-China Policy, the Three Communiques, and the Taiwan Relations Act,” he pointed out. He said that U.S. policies and actions are “predicated on” Beijing’s “continuation of the policy of peaceful resolution of the question” of Taiwan, adding that Washington expects that policy to continue. There is no change whatsoever in Washington’s policy vis-à-vis Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China. 

President Chen called a high-level conference on national security and economic development at Tahsi near Taipei on August 24-25 to soften the impact of his “one country on each side” doctrine on Taiwan’s foreign relations. Participants included all Cabinet ministers, National Security Council advisors and Democratic Progressive Party leaders. The two-day session was widely perceived as a forum whereby a new strategy was mapped out to continue the Chen doctrine.

The Chen doctrine has scarcely dented the Washington-Beijing-Taipei triangular relationship, albeit it may exert multiple effects. One short-term effect is that President Chen will be able to consolidate the support of pro-independence voters. Inasmuch as the effect for a longer term is concerned, he may make his doctrine a dominant opinion in Taiwan on its relations with the People’s Republic of China so as to minimize the appeal for unification to the electorate from his rivals in the 2004 presidential election. Its long-term effect may be a broadening of his Democratic Progressive Party’s power base among young voters and middle-of-the-roaders.