But then why the change? The answer may have something to do with the ideological legacy Lee wants to leave. Lee is already the first native Taiwanese leader of the island nation. To be remembered as the man that made the nation a country is a powerful lure. Lee is in his final year of office, and already candidates are gearing up for the next presidential elections. He may wish to depart from the conventional wisdom that says reunification is inevitable, and that it will be desirable for Taiwan once China democratized "enough" (whatever that means). Since China is growing stronger more rapidly than it is growing democratic, Lee might wish to start the push toward independence before China's strength is too great for Taiwan to resist. In the end, Taiwan's hand may be just as ideological as China's.
American press coverage of the recent volley of barbs has been more extensive than Asian political squabbles usually receive, partially because of Chinese efforts to provoke America into reiterating the official US line. The ploy has worked. Spokesmen for the State Department (most notably James Rubin) have been repeating, mantra-like, that official United States policy has not changed. That policy, which essentially recognizes "one China" and expresses wishes that the whole thing is worked out peacefully, is precisely the message that China is trying to sell in Taiwan. Some Americans dislike the message. Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has expressed his belief that there are in fact two Chinas, two different nations. Then again, Helms, a hawkish politician from the "better dead than Red" old school, would have America deny normal trade perks to China, a position that would only intensify the problem.
Right now, it is important for Taiwan to steady the boat. Quieting down on the independence talk will defuse tension without costing anything. The United States needs to apply whatever political pressure it can on Taiwan to make this happen. A year ago, the US might also have brought some pressure upon China to quiet down, but the events of the last year (including charges of espionage and the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia) have reduced the leverage the US holds over China, and made China less likely to agree to political demands in exchange for economic access.
China is probably playing the scenario exactly as it should; no war will start without its military initiative, which is unlikely, since there is far too much to lose. But there is an important difference between trade bluster and ideological threats. When money is all that is at stake, a country is not likely to make a choice that will hurt its economy in the long run. But nations do irrational things, sometimes, for the sake of ideology. The Taiwan Straits can ill afford irrationality.
