Christensen, Jay Leno & the Crystal Clear US Position on Taiwan's UN Referendum
Sunday December 09, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
On December 6, 2007, US Deputy Secretary of State Tom Christensen spoke to a roundtable and answered questions from reporters on Taiwan's upcoming UN Referendum Proposal. In the brief interchange with reporters Christensen repeatedly stressed over and over again that his main purpose was to make the US policy "perfectly clea" to the people of Taiwan. That this was a near verbatim repeat of what he said a couple of months back seemed to have no impact on Christensen. Such constant repetitions on the part of the US State Department serve only to raise questions of its credibility; the State Department can only fall back on its hackneyed past.
A typical paragraph taken from Christensen's speech is the following. "Our purpose in stating that is that we want to make clear to the Taiwan people, to the Taiwan leaders, what our position is. If the Taiwan people and the Taiwan leaders are clear about what the United States thinks about the referendum, then we will have succeeded in this policy goal. It is up to the people in Taiwan what to do about that information."
I highlight in bold how Christensen used the word Taiwan five times in just one paragraph. In the course of his statement and answers he would use the word some eighty-seven times. Ironically, Christensen's expressed concern was to make sure that Taiwan did not use the name Taiwan in its referendum.
In Christensen's words, the US was opposed to any unilateral changes in the status quo from either side of the Taiwan Strait. Naturally he did not regard China's yearly piling up of missiles against Taiwan was unilateral, but he did fear that a referendum using the name Taiwan was. Sample quotes follow.
"That's what we've done consistently since this UN membership referendum in the name of Taiwan was raised in Taiwan, and we'll continue to do it."
"We believe that the UN membership referendum in the name of Taiwan is just such a policy that unnecessarily raises tensions."
Reporters failed to get clarification on how Christensen could say he supported Taiwan's democracy but he did not want Taiwan to practice it by having this referendum. Perhaps they needed some Jay Leno type questions.
Jay Leno questions, "Now let me get this clear Mr. Christensen, you speak of the Taiwan Strait and its tensions, the United States offices in Taiwan are called The American Institute in Taiwan, and the United States has the Taiwan Relations Act. But you object to Taiwan using the name Taiwan in its referendum."
Christensen answers. "It is our duty to let the people of Taiwan, know exactly where we stand on this."
Jay Leno continues, "I am trying to get a handle on this Mr. Christensen, in your speech you used the word Taiwan eighty-seven times and never once did you refer to Taiwan by any other name or even suggest one. Yet, you don't want Taiwan to use that name in its referendum."
Christensen answers again, "Yes it is our duty to be perfectly clear in our statements so that Taiwan knows exactly where it stands with us."
Jay Leno tries again, "I think I am getting the hang of this, it is alright for you to use the word Taiwan, and for China to use the word Taiwan, but Taiwan should never use it in its referendum because that would raise tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Is that a correct rendering?"
Christensen answers, "Yes, I think you have it Jay, China's missile build-up is not provocative or tension raising, but for Taiwan to use the name Taiwan in a referendum, that is a clearly provocative."
Jay Leno poses one last question, "How do you know that Taiwan using the name Taiwan is what raises the tensions and the other things do not?"
Christensen answers, "Oh that one is easy Jay, China told us so. We let them define the terms, it makes our policy easier."