By Richard Halloran

After nearly three years of careful strides toward strategic clarity in China policy, President Bush has slipped back into strategic ambiguity, a posture that is certain to raise diplomatic questions in Asia and to cause him political problems at home.

The president's statements during a White House visit on Tuesday by the premier of China, Wen Jiabao, so angered some of his conservative supporters that they accused him of "appeasement." Ironically, his equivocal stance has also left the president open to a Democratic charge during the reelection campaign next year that he has gone soft on China. Moreover, hazy briefings by the White House press secretary and two unnamed senior officials, one evidently from the National Security Council staff and the other from the State Department, left the distinct impression of a policy in disarray.

The ambiguity of earlier administrations on China was intended to keep Beijing and Taipei guessing about U.S. intentions in the event of hostilities over the fate of the island that China claims, and thus to deter them from war. This new ambiguity, which may be inadvertent, will leave American voters and Asian leaders wondering if President Bush has any China policy at all.

President Bush met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at the White House last week. Bush said the United States opposes any move by Taiwan to unilaterally change the "status quo" between that island nation and China. Associated Press

During a welcoming ceremony in the White House garden, Bush said: "We are partners in diplomacy, working to meet the dangers of the 21st century." Before he was elected, Bush saw China as a "competitor," not a partner.

Later, in the Oval Office, the president delivered the statement that pleased Premier Wen and aroused American conservatives: "We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo. Comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."

The "leader of Taiwan" whom the president criticized was President Chen Shui-bian, who has set a referendum at the time of the presidential election next March that would urge China to remove its 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan and renounce the use of force to capture Taiwan. The Chinese see that as a step toward a formal declaration of independence.

Contrast the president's position on Taiwan now with that of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who in 2001 said of the dispute over Taiwan: "Let all who doubt, from whatever perspective, be assured of one solid truth: We expect and demand a peaceful settlement, one acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait."

Things really got wobbly in the briefing by Scott McClellan where the press secretary gave fuzzy answers or didn't have an answer or didn't understand the question. Ambiguity got spilled all over the floor.

A reporter asked, for instance: "Why is the president opposing the exercise of the democratic self-determination by the people of Taiwan when he says that's a cornerstone of his policy worldwide?"

McClellan said the president "made it very clear that we support the one-China policy and the Taiwan Relations Act, which is part of the three joint communiques."

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 was passed by Congress precisely to counter the communiques and to commit the U.S. to help Taiwan determine its own destiny. The give and take continued for 25 minutes with McClellan repeatedly contending "our policy has not changed," which in Washington often means there is no policy.

Late in the afternoon, two senior officials sought to control the damage. One emphasized: "The president did tell the Chinese in no uncertain terms that we, the United States, would have to get involved if China tried to use coercion or force to unilaterally change the status of Taiwan."

"There are two separate messages here," the unnamed official said. "One is for the Chinese that, look, you can't use force, you can't use coercion. The other one is for the Taiwanese: Look, you shouldn't be moving towards independence."

By that time, it was too late to fend off critics. Conservatives in the Project for the New American Century asserted in a statement: "Appeasement of a dictatorship simply invites further attempts at intimidation. Standing with democratic Taiwan would secure stability in East Asia. Seeming to reward Beijing's bullying will not."

Richard Halloran is a former New York Times correspondent in Asia and Washington. Reach him at oranhall@hawaii.rr.com.