How precarious is Taiwan's situation? The question arises because of speculation on the state of US-Taiwan relations. Some analysts have suggested that Washington is not happy with President Chen Shui-bian's (
Chen recently said: "As an independent sovereign country, Taiwan does not belong to the People's Republic of China [PRC], nor is it a part of any other country." During the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections, China's response to this was an aggressive show of military and political intimidation. But this was counter-productive. It failed to derail the election process and both times the people of Taiwan elected the candidates that Beijing strongly opposed.
This time around, with the next presidential election in March, Beijing is trying a different tactic of avoiding overt intimidation. True, the panoply of Chinese military power, with hundreds of missiles targeting Taiwan, is conspicuous and growing in size. But shows of force by way of military exercises have been missing so far. China fears that this might strengthen Chen's re-election prospects.
Beijing apparently hopes that Washington will restrain Taipei, now that Sino-US relations are more stable with the increase in global terrorism. Chen has acknowledged growing diplomatic cooperation between Beijing and Washington. He has said that: "The US needs China's accommodation on the issues of antiterrorism and North Korea's nuclear weapons." But this to him is not a problem as long as the US is supportive of Taiwan and continues to strengthen "substantive relations."
Undoubtedly, there is some disquiet in Washington about the Taiwan situation. The fear, according to one anonymous senior administration official, is that at some point Chen's statements might cross Beijing's "thresholds that only it can define and we can't control." And Washington doesn't want to be in that situation.
Apparently, there are local elements that are keen to reinforce this perception. True to Taiwan's adversarial politics, the opposition sees an advantage in this. For instance, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians seek to highlight the damage it says Chen is doing to Taiwan's business environment by provoking China. There is a sense that Taiwan's economic future is tied up with China. If so, what is the point in raising difficult political issues such as sovereignty that can only damage your economic prospects?
As Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Easier said than done. There is no indication that Beijing will play the ball by KMT rules. Moreover, the question of identity is not something that can be engaged or disengaged at will. It is a process with its own momentum.
Then there is the American factor. Taiwan's relationship with the US is of the utmost importance. An impression is growing that Chen is creating strain in that relationship by his provocative statements, in other words, that he is becoming a troublemaker in the eyes of the US. From this perspective, a KMT government would be considered to be better able to manage relations with both China and the US.
In adversarial politics, political rhetoric tends to step beyond reality. And this is true of Taiwan too. It is true that Washington is keen on China's cooperation against global terrorism and North Korea's nuclear program. But there is no sign that it is prepared to ditch Taiwan. Indeed, the US is concerned about the lack of military preparedness for a Chinese attack.
According to a Washington Post report, "The Bush Administration has quietly embarked on an ambitious effort to restructure Taiwan's military and improve the island's ability to defend itself against China." It adds: "But the US plan is foundering because Taiwan leaders are reluctant to foot the enormous bill and force change upon the island's highly politicized and conservative military."
Indeed, military cooperation between the US and Taiwan has expanded considerably under the Bush administration. This is obviously not the sign of a frayed or fractured relationship.
But Washington would certainly not be keen on another military front in the Taiwan Strait when it is already over-stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, some might argue, Chen's provocative statements are not helpful.
When asked how Beijing might react to Chen's pronouncements, Ma said: "Obviously they know that this time they should not play into the hands of the DPP. They will exert pressure on Washington instead of playing the bad guy." Whether or not this is simply wishful thinking is difficult to say.
Taiwan's problem is not so much external as internal. Its frayed internal politics give China the leverage to subvert Taiwan from within. Much of the nation's business community is lured by the limitless potential of China's domestic market and export opportunities.
Business leaders clearly do not want incorporation into China but favor a political compromise to placate Beijing. According to Ma, "I don't think people are willing to sacrifice their dignity to be part of the PRC. But then again, there are quite a few possibilities that lie between sacrificing dignity and reaping economic benefits."
But there is no middle ground here. Beijing states loud and clear that Taiwan is part of China. If some people in Taiwan still believe that other options are feasible in the eyes of the Chinese, then they are simply deluded.
Therefore, unless there is a united political front on the question of Taiwan's identity, Beijing is likely to have the upper hand. And that doesn't bode well for the nation.
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney, Australia.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS