A Case Study in Confusion

By James Kelly

Reagan's Taiwan tangle exposes basic campaign weaknesses

"I misstated." With that flat admission, Ronald Reagan last week tried to clarify, once again, his confusing views on exactly what sort of relations he favors with Taiwan. Reagan grudgingly backed away from what he called his mis-statement--a pledge to establish "an official governmental relationship" with Taiwan--and promised merely to abide by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which expressly declares that relations between the two nations must be conducted by a "nongovernmental" body.

Campaign Director William Casey dismissed the entire episode as a "semantic mishmash," but the strained faces of staffers--and of Reagan and Running Mate George Bush, who was at his side during the press conference in Los Angeles--reflected a far deeper concern than that. Reagan's earlier remarks had managed to infuriate Peking, create the impression of a rift between Reagan and Bush, and make Reagan appear to be unschooled in an important area of U.S. foreign affairs. The episode also managed to do exactly what Democrats had been hoping for: it put Reagan on the defensive, correcting his own views, just when the Republican nominee had planned to be on the offensive, attacking Jimmy Carter's record.

U.S. Ambassador to China Leonard Woodcock called a rare press conference of his own in Peking the following day to blast Reagan. Charged Woodcock: "To endanger the carefully crafted relationship between the People's Republic and the U.S. is to run the risk of gravely weakening the American international position at a dangerous time." Appointed by Jimmy Carter to his post in January 1979, Woodcock stressed that he was issuing the warning on his own and had not cleared the statement with either the White House or the State Department, a claim backed up by the Administration. Woodcock's highly political remarks were unusual, and some might say improper for an ambassador. Understandably, the comments angered the Reagan camp. Said Bush: "I can't imagine an ambassador doing that without instructions from Washington."

A staunch supporter of Taiwan for years, Reagan was asked at a rally in Cleveland on May 17 how he would treat Taiwan. He replied: "One of the things I look forward to most if I am successful in this election is to re-establish official relations between the United States Government and Taiwan."

Such a step would violate the 1978 agreement between the U.S. and China, in which Washington recognized the Peking government as the only legitimate government of China and acknowledged that "there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." Furthermore, Washington later agreed to maintain only "unofficial" trade and cultural relations with Taiwan, now carried out through an organization called the American Institute in Taiwan. The name is a polite fiction; the office is funded by Washington and staffed by State Department personnel "on leave" from their Government jobs. Though the arrangement infuriated the Taiwanese at the time, the controversy quieted as Taiwan continued to prosper commercially and the mainland made no efforts to absorb the island.

Reagan's views on Taiwan got scant attention at the time of the Cleveland rally and might have gone unnoticed if campaign staffers had not thought of sending a mission to Peking as a means of showing the ticket's concern about foreign affairs. Reagan's staffers decided to send Bush, who had been a former envoy to Peking. No one on the staff had the wit or prescience to draw up a position paper to help either Bush or Reagan when tough questions about Taiwan came up on both sides of the Pacific.

Then, at a bon voyage press conference for Bush on Aug. 16, Reagan repeated his comment about hoping to set up an "official governmental relationship" between the U.S. and Taiwan. Peking officials received Bush frostily and demanded clarification of Reagan's remarks. Bush tried and failed to convince them that there would be no government relations "in the diplomatic sense" with Taiwan in a Reagan Administration. Meanwhile, back in the U.S., Reagan undercut Bush by telling a reporter, "Um, I guess it's a yes," when asked if he still stood by his original Taiwan statement. As Bush left China, the official New China News Agency angrily--and with considerable hyperbole--charged that Reagan had "insulted 1 billion Chinese people."

Bush was infuriated and embarrassed by Reagan's performance, and the episode created the clear impression of a poorly coordinated ticket. Only when Bush was winging his way back home did aides begin to try to control the damage. They put together a nine-page statement that Reagan read at his press conference last week welcoming Bush back to the U.S. Reagan acknowledged that the Taiwan Relations Act forbade an official relationship with Taiwan. But he also insisted that the present arrangement is in effect official, and accused Carter of being "hypocritical" for pretending otherwise. Reagan went on to point out, accurately, that the act offers considerable leeway in dealing with the Taiwanese. Said Reagan: "I will eliminate petty practices of the Carter Administration which are inappropriate and demeaning to our Chinese friends in Taiwan." One example: the practice, not required by the law, of having Taiwanese and U.S. officials meet away from their offices.

Vice President Walter Mondale, campaigning in New York, called Reagan's position "potentially disastrous to our national security." Reagan met with five Republican Governors in Columbus last week to discuss campaign strategy and, predictably, they downplayed the episode. Said Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh: "On the street corners of Pittsburgh, they're not much concerned about China policy. They're concerned where their next paycheck is coming from." Insisted Reagan Pollster Richard Wirthlin: "Reagan did not damage his grass-roots support at all."

The Taiwan snafu illustrates Reagan's tendency to speak too quickly or overstate his case. No sooner had Reagan attempted to bury the Taiwan controversy than he ran into another problem. Appearing before a convention of Ohio Teamsters in Columbus, he attacked Carter for creating "a severe depression." That was going too far for Conservative Economist Alan Greenspan, a Reagan adviser, who was on TV that night admitting, "I wouldn't describe it as such." The next day, Reagan attempted to explain why he used that particular word. "I am well aware there is a technical line between recession and depression," he said. "But I'm speaking of depression now in the human sense." Then he deftly dismissed the episode: "Depression is when you're out of work. A recession is when your neighbor's out of work. Recovery is when Carter's out of work."

Part of Reagan's campaigning problem rests with his uncoordinated staff. The top echelon is too insensitive to its candidate's rhetorical accidents. The insiders--men like Lyn Nofziger, Edwin Meese, Wirthlin and Michael Deaver--are mainly veterans of the California days, with little Washington or national campaign experience. The outsiders--like Campaign Director Casey, William Timmons and Drew Lewis--do have that valuable experience but exercise less influence over the candidate. The inexperienced insiders cannot spot many potential problems, and they have become so accustomed to Reagan's habits that they tend to overlook them. Warns one Republican who knows Reagan and most of his staffers well: "If there's a real crisis in October, watch out. These guys just can't cope with big surprises."

But ultimately the responsibility for a campaign rests with the candidate, and Candidate Reagan is a man of strong beliefs who prides himself on saying exactly what he thinks as directly as possible. More often than not, Reagan has made his slip-ups while trying to please his immediate audience but forgetting how his statements will play across the nation on that evening's news programs and in the next day's papers. If the staff is unable to bridle him, he may prefer it that way. Said one top Reagan aide: "The Taiwan matter may be an indication that nobody is in charge of the Governor." Such independence may indeed be admirable in Reagan the man. The weeks of the fall campaign may show whether such a trait works successfully in Reagan the presidential nomiee.

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett, Reagan

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.