Pundits the world over are worried about the implications of the willingness of Obama and his Democratic Party administration to enter into a "strategic partnership' with the authoritarian PRC.

Prime among the concerns of the Taiwan people is the question of why the U.S. failed to mention the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 in the Joint Statement along with the so-called "three communiques" between Washington and Beijing as forming the foundation of the U.S.'s "our one China policy" despite Obama's verbal emphasis on the TRA in a press statement after meeting with Hu.

The absence of the TRA from the Joint Statement was particularly unfortunate since the latter was the first such broadly stated expression of commitment on numerous issues between the U.S. and the PRC for over two decades and because the joint statement contained an unprecedented agreement to Beijing's insistence on respect from Washington for China's sovereignty and territorial integrity within the context of "building and deepening bilateral strategic trust" and as "the core of the three U.S.-China communiques which guide U.S.-China relations."

It is likely that American Institute for Taiwan Board Chairman Raymond Burghardt, who arrived yesterday to brief President Ma Ying-jeou and his Kuomintang administration and, hopefully, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, that the issue of "sovereignty and territorial integrity" does not refer to Taiwan.

Since the Joint Statement does not explicitly include a recognition by Washington that "Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China" (as it did regarding Tibet), Burghardt might argue that the U.S. is agreeing only to "respect" of a general principle and the U.S. has only "acknowledged" but never "recognized" Beijing's claim that Taiwan is "part of China" or "part of the PRC" under the latter's "one China principle."

Uncertain assurances

Nevertheless, we cannot help but be concerned that Beijing will take advantage of this seemingly new expression of Washington's "respect" to bolster its international propaganda that "Taiwan is a part of China" and downplay the TRA, especially since this affirmation was preceded by a paragraph in which Beijing defined its meaning by emphasizing that "the Taiwan issue concerns China's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

However, the Obama administration should keep in mind that the language of the Joint Statement skirts very close to contradicting the "Six Assurances" commitments made to Taiwan in July 1982 by the late U.S. president Ronald Reagan, including his promise that Washington would not play a mediation role between the PRC and Taiwan or alter its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.

Moreover, the Joint Statement also showed that Washington is pleased to see the improvement in cross-strait relations and the resumption of dialogue between Taipei and Beijing after the restoration of KMT rule last year under Ma.

Nevertheless, Washington should pay attention to an increasing number of indications that this "improvement" is more apparent than substantive and more fleeting than lasting and not overlook growing dissent within Taiwan over the pace, scope and the lack of transparency and democratic accountability in Ma's cross-strait policy.

The expression in the Joint Statement that the U.S. "looks forward" to "efforts by both sides to increase dialogues and interactions in economic, political, and other fields" creates an impression of endorsement for Ma's one-sided and China-centric cross-strait policy and the extension of "political" or even "unification" talks for which there is absolutely no consensus in Taiwan.

This statement is particularly alarming since it seems to encourage Beijing's current intensification of pressure on the Ma administration to enter into "political talks," as illustrated by the calls by several heavyweight PRC scholar-officials for political negotiation during a conference held earlier this month in Taipei.

Democratic assent

Obama could have provided more balance and upheld democratic principles if he had reiterated the content of the statement by his predecessor Democratic president Bill Clinton on Feb. 24, 2000 that "the issues between Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan" during his post-summit press statement.

We urge Burghardt to reaffirm to both the Ma administration and the Taiwan people that U.S. policy toward Taiwan has not and will not change even though Washington is deepening its "strategic partnership" with Beijing and that the Taiwan Relations Act remains the foundation of U.S. policy toward Taiwan.

The AIT chairman should also clarify that the U.S. has no intention to push Taipei into "political negotiations" with Beijing and should confirm that the Obama administration respects Taiwan's democratic system in terms of how its cross-strait policy is forged, including the democratic principle that the resolution of issues between the PRC and Taiwan must have the "assent" of the 23 million Taiwan people.