"My impression is that most American politicians, American governors, they don't like to be pushed around that way."
Burghardt said China's actions appeared to be at odds with the rapid improvement in relations across the 100-mile- (160-kilometer-) wide Taiwan Strait that have taken place since Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou jettisoned his predecessor's support for formal independence upon taking office 2 1/2 years ago.
"It's ... inconsistent with all their professions of desire to improve cross-strait relations to treat Taiwan that way. I think it's a serious matter."
Nixon's aborted visit to Taiwan focused on selling $600 million worth of Missouri agricultural products to Taiwanese consumers. He originally said the trip's cancellation was due to "travel challenges," but later acknowledged that Chinese pressure had played a role.
This is where Burghardt and other China Doves in the State Department are, I think, going wrong.
First, American politicians are constantly being pushed around in many different ways as they seek continual reelection but also pressure within the beltway to vote strategically for the party or a clique within their party. Being pushed around by Chinese officials dangling the carrot of local investment may be a new experience for US politicians but not for most of the world's countries.
Second, pushing US politicians around is not inconsistent with CCP-KMT professions to improve cross-strait relations. That 'improvement' has been carried out through excluding not only the US but also absenting most Taiwanese opinion from oversight or involvement in the process. Cross-strait relations appear 'just fine' despite China squeezing US politicians not to come to Taiwan. China seeks to demotivate US politician visits because it wants to reduce the links between Taiwan and the US not see them expand. The Ma administration will not complain too much about not getting international recognition or participation in return for concessions from China because those complaints are mostly for domestic consumption by the electorate before elections so as to paint the KMT as 'pro-Taiwan' when the reality is the leadership are actually 'pro-China'. Hence the objection coming from AIT and not MOFA (can anyone contradict me here? please post a comment with a link to a news article about MOFA or any other Government agency or spokesperson expressing anger over this move by the PRC)
This being said, Burghardt is right in one sense though. Despite Ma's continued claims that his approach and policies such as ECFA would lead to greater international space for Taiwan, this has not materialised. No FTA's with new large national economies (the US FTA talks were not, and now again are, affected by the beef dispute and even Singapore is dragging its feet). Instead Taiwan has experienced disgraceful treatment by the PRC toward Taiwanese film industry notables in Japan just a few months ago not to mention the ever expanding problem of China's unofficial navy - fishing trawlers and their violent crews - now starting to give the Taiwanese Coast Guard a hard time too.
Mike Turton has some background to this issue here on December 13th.
Also, despite some great work recently, AP has slipped again into the old mantra ... intone after me:
Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949.
Beijing still claims the democratic island as part of its territory and attempts to limit any activity that might appear to give it the appearance of a sovereign state.
First sentence is historical revisionism as per standard for most AP reporters. The second sentence is more interesting for taking account of China's agency in Taiwan's international relations and participation.
Also, note above that AP cites the 'rapid improvement in relations across the 100-mile- (160-kilometer-) wide Taiwan Strait' as having happened because 'Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou jettisoned his predecessor's support for formal independence upon taking office 2 1/2 years ago'.
There's a simplification reductio ad absurdum for you. See how straw man Chen Shui-bian is still held up as the contrast and the reason for both tension and peace? Without 'The Chen Clause', it becomes immediately obvious that the PRC was and still is the main obstacle to cross-strait peace, not any particular Taiwanese President or administration. But no, the new uncritically regurgitated line is that China would not work officially with the DPP and that's Chen's fault because he bent over backwards to meet them half way with dignity deliberately sabotaged relations with talk of independence that he knew would be unacceptable and a breech of the US and PRC One China policy....... ommm
