In an exclusive interview with The China Post, Holbrooke stated that his remarks regarding the “fourth communique,” made in a Jan. 2 op-ed article in the Washington Post, had been misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued, but that he anticipated such comments in writing the article.

Richard Boucher, U.S. State Department spokesman, in response to the Jan 2. article, reiterated that there would be no change in the existing framework of Washington’s relationship with Beijing.

In his article, “A Defining Moment With China,” Holbrooke wrote that the “Sino-American relationship will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world during the next cycle of history.” However, he emphasized that Taiwan is included in this relationship.

“When I say U.S.-Chinese, I include Taiwan,” Holbrooke said.

Reacting to Holbrooke’s article, James Lilley, former U.S. ambassador to Beijing and former director of the American Institute in Taiwan, in a letter on Monday to the Washington Post, said that there is no need for a “fourth communique.” He said that such a document would only serve to bog down discussions between the United States and mainland China, when there are more important issues to pursue.

Holbrooke defended his position, stating that the three existing communiques — the Shanghai Communique (1972), the Joint Communique on Normalization of Relations (1978) and the Communique on Arms Sales to Taiwan (1982) — “were written during the Cold War, before Taiwan had a mature political system, before Sept. 11, before Tiananmen Square, before the crackdowns in Tibet.”

“Some of the things are irrelevant now and some have been eroded by time” Holbrooke said. “There would be value in an update.”

Nevertheless, Holbrooke stopped short of specifying the exact content of a “fourth communique,” saying that as a private citizen this was not his position, and that such details could only be formulated by officials.

He acknowledged his attendance at a Shanghai business leaders’ conference in November, but denied any significance in the timing of the article, although he is known to have met with President Jiang Zemin at that time.

“I’ve been talking to a lot of people, and I’ve tried this idea out in semi-public meetings,” Holbrooke said. “I wanted to provoke a public discussion on the fact that the U.S.-China relationship has improved since Sept. 11, but this is not something we should take for granted.”

While standing by his support for a “fourth communique” with Beijing, Holbrooke was quick to reaffirm his affinity to the people of Taiwan. “I consider myself a friend of Taiwan and the Taiwanese people,” he said.

Although each communique has been “less of a problem for Taiwan than its predecessor,” the notion of yet another communique between Washington and Beijing would not be welcomed in Taiwan, Holbrooke said.

“I knew the official position would be negative to this, because the official position from Taiwan has been negative on every communique, even the 1982 communique which legitimizes arms sales,” said Holbrooke, who first visited Taiwan in 1977 and met President Chiang Ching-kuo in his capacity as U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Holbrooke expressed his view that Taiwan plays a major role in maintaining stability in the Pacific. “We can do nothing that would put the prosperity, stability and peace of Taiwan at risk,” he said.

Please see HOLBROOKE on page