There is no prouder legacy for U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War world than the establishment of true democracies in the countries that the United States supported or worked to liberate.

Because of the powerful image of the Berlin Wall being torn down, most Americans are aware of the general success of these efforts in Europe -- where many of the countries that made up the Communist bloc have democratized at a remarkable rate.

Fewer, however, are aware of the Asian successes. After decades of authoritarian rule, South Korea has established a true and apparently stable democracy. Free elections in the South and grinding poverty and famine in the North are perhaps the strongest demonstrations of the strengths of the democratic system.

In a lesser-known example, Taiwan has established a true democracy. This is quite a turnaround in the country established by the remnants of the Republic of China government when it was driven off the Chinese mainland after the Communist revolution. For many years, Taiwan was ruled by an authoritarian regime that kept tight control of the political system, which it justified because of its continuing struggle with the Mainland Chinese.

In the 1990s, however, Taiwan made a dramatic transition to true democracy. After riding out a wave of missile launches and threats from the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan democratically elected its first president in 1996. On March 18, Taiwan will elect its second president. By nature of the nascent state of Taiwanese democracy, the results of elections are uncertain. But if public-opinion polls are accurate Taiwan may elect its first leader not from the political party that has ruled the state since its establishment. Whatever the result, however, the United States should look to the establishment of democracy in Taiwan with real pride. Without U.S. support, the PRC surely would have swallowed Taiwan at some point in the last 50 years. Instead it is a burgeoning democracy. But is that enough?

The large deployment of U.S. troops in South Korea provides unequivocal evidence of a continuing American commitment to a free South Korea -- perhaps beyond what is justified given the level of threat from a weak North Korea. The question must be asked: Does the United States have a similar level of commitment to Taiwan?

Taiwan and China

Before answering, consider the current situation in the Taiwan Straits. A democratic Taiwan confronts an increasingly powerful, and imperialistic, PRC on the nearby mainland. The PRC has fought border squabbles with most of its neighbors and invaded and annexed Tibet. Quite recently, it has convinced Great Britain and Portugal to cede control of small enclaves they controlled on the Chinese coast.

Taiwan and China engaged in active combat over some small islands between Taiwan and the mainland. As recently as 1996, China engaged in military exercises, including missile launches, clearly aimed at intimidating Taiwanese voters. Just this week, China threatened to use military force against Taiwan if it did not begin actively negotiating the terms of reunification.

Surprisingly, faced with this situation, recent American presidents have seemed to tilt increasingly toward favoring the mainland over Taiwan. Through a series of steps begun in the early 1970s, which resulted in what is known as the "one-China policy," the United States has increasingly recognized the mainland as the legitimate government of Chinese territory and discouraged Taiwan from asserting independence.

The United States does supply Taiwan with most of its weaponry, but it has agreed to limit and reduce those sales for fear of offending China. In deference to the PRC, U.S. leaders are generally forbidding Taiwanese leaders from even visiting the United States.

President Clinton took this policy to a new level in what has become known as the "three noes policy" on his visit to Beijing last year. Although it was a small step built on past policy, it had important consequences. Among other things, the three noes formally committed the United States not to support efforts by Taiwan to seek independence or its efforts to gain membership in most international organizations.

It is not fair to characterize China as a merciless empire set on world domination. Nonetheless, the current PRC regime has a horrific record of respect for human rights and toleration of religious freedom. Its military ambitions are probably more along the lines of establishing itself as a dominant regional power rather than world domination. Absent the possibility of outside intervention, however, the Chinese military and many of its leaders would likely use its military power to blockade, invade or threaten Taiwan until it submitted to the PRC.

The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act

Unfortunately, the Clinton administration seems to disagree with this view. The Clinton administration has continued a tilt toward the PRC over Taiwan that began in the Nixon administration. Most troubling, the administration has vociferously opposed the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act (TSEA) -- currently being considered in the U.S. Congress -- which approves new arms sales to and establishes new military ties with Taiwan. TSEA essentially clarifies and restates the American commitment to the defense of Taiwan made in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.

The bill recently passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin, but the administration has vowed an all-out fight in the Senate. Probably owing to the administration's opposition, however, only 28 Democrats co-sponsored TSEA. In the Senate the situation is even starker, with only one Democrat -- Sen. Robert Torricelli (NJ) -- bucking the administration and supporting additional military sales to Taiwan.

As the administration and its defenders fairly note, no one wants to see a war break out in the Taiwan Straits. It is just as important to note, however, that no one should be willing to allow a democracy of 22 million people to be smothered in its cradle.

It would be unwise to sell Taiwan weapons that would spark an arms race, but in light of China's well-reported buildup of missiles and ships, that hardly seems a fair characterization of the current situation. In fact, an arms race is already underway in the Taiwan Straits, one led by China. If current trends continue, a number of military analysts believe that China could gain a decisive advantage in 10 to 20 years.

The question then is not whether the United States should drive Taiwan into an arms race with the PRC, but whether the United States will allow Taiwan to keep pace by selling new submarines, missiles and early-warning equipment that Taiwan needs to defend itself.

Far from being provocative, these steps are needed just to maintain the balance that has kept relative peace in the Taiwan Straits. The truly provocative step would be to allow the current situation to continue and allow Beijing's leaders to imagine that a military solution of their "Taiwan problem" was feasible -- the outcome that risks making war thinkable.

In a strange counter, the administration and many in the core of "China hands" argue that the U.S. should maintain an ambiguous posture regarding its commitment to Taiwanese security so as not to encourage either side (read: Taiwan) to act rashly (read: move toward stated independence from the mainland). Despite the solemn tones in which it is usually stated, this sounds much more like a rationalization than an actual basis for policy.

Has the American commitment to Japan or South Korea driven them to act rashly? Did America's commitment to Europe throughout the Cold War inspire France and Germany to goad the Soviet Union? Even if the United States firmly agreed to defend Taiwan, are we so foolish as to believe Taiwanese leaders would act without careful consideration?

In reality, it is ambiguity, not clarity, that risks conflict. The so-called ambiguity of policy seems much more likely to create a misunderstanding that could lead to conflict than a clear statement of support understood by both Taiwan and China.

Provide for Taiwan

In the 20 some years since the current U.S. policy toward the region was forged, a great deal has changed in the world and in the Taiwan Straits. The Cold War, which drove President Nixon forward, has ended. Political change has made Taiwan a democratic ally of the United States, supporting efforts in the Gulf War and U.S. efforts to contain the Asian economic crisis. China has built itself into a formidable military force.

Despite all this change, U.S. policy has taken little note. The cornerstones of U.S. policy toward the Taiwan Straits, the one-China policy and the Taiwan Relations Act are now both more than two decades old.

The United States cannot afford to ignore the changes taking place in Taiwan any more than it could afford to ignore Beijing 30 years ago. The realities that underpinned the current one-China policy have all changed; the policy must evolve to reflect those changes.

Rather than scurrying to the side of one of the world's most oppressive governments, the Clinton administration should be battling to help forge a role for democrats in Taiwan.

This does not mean provoking needless conflict with China. But it does mean helping Taiwan to establish its place in the international arena through steps, such as membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). It does mean actively helping Taiwan to build democratic institutions. And it does mean providing Taipei the weapons it needs to defend itself, and, if necessary, committing to its defense against military moves by Beijing.

It may be that the administration can make the case to amend particular provisions of TSEA. The debate on details of legislation, however, should not overshadow a task that all Americans should take to with enthusiasm: welcoming the establishment of real democracy in Taiwan and doing what must be done to allow it to flourish.