China has recently raised doubts about US policy on Taiwan-China relations and has been issuing a series of bellicose statements to this end. In a seminar held on Nov. 18, the vice minister of the Taiwan Affairs Office, Wang Zaixi (
Using tougher language, a director of research at China's Academy of Military Sciences, Luo Yuan (
The interesting thing is that former president Lee Teng-hui's (
Prior to Taiwan's presidential election in 2000, then-Chinese premier Zhu Rongji (
Beijing's new bottom line is that Taiwan cannot change the territory stipulated in its Constitution, which China has refused to recognize anyway. Such are Beijing's infantile games.
Does this mean that China considers itself and the Republic of Mongolia to be under the jurisdiction of Taiwan's Constitution? If so, then it's China that has to do some constitutional amending.
Regardless, the US takes the games of infants very seriously and wants to prevent China playing with fire. US State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli has said that using force to resolve cross-strait differences is "unacceptable." He has also said that the US opposes any attempt by either side to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
Replying to a journalist's questions, the US Deputy Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Randall Shriver, repeated a statement by National Security Council Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently. At a press conference on Oct. 15, Rice had said: "It is our very strong belief that nobody should try unilaterally to change the status quo."
So what is the status quo across the Taiwan Strait? Rice said differences across the strait must be resolved peacefully. Shriver also said that the cross-strait status quo is one in which differences of opinion should be dealt with by peaceful means. The role of US policy would be to create an environment for peaceful dialogue.
In short, they emphasized the "differences" first and only then mentioned peaceful solutions to the differences.
The so-called differences exist between China's "one China" principle and Taiwan's "one country on each side" platform. They apparently result from the fact that Taiwan exists as an independent country. If Taiwan is unwillingly and forcibly annexed by China, that would mean that the status quo had been changed.
The status quo does not include changes to the two sides' domestic political situations. For instance, China can amend its Constitution or even create a new one; Taiwan certainly can, too. Taiwan can strengthen democracy through use of referendums; China certainly can, too. It is unlikely the US would voice opposition if China pushed for democratic reform. All these are the domestic affairs of two independent, sovereign states.
In a recent interview with the Voice of America network, American Institute in Taiwan Chairwoman Therese Shaheen said that in regard to cross-strait problems, the US cares about the process, not the outcome. She said the outcome would be decided by the two sides, but the process must be peaceful.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage emphasized later that a peaceful resolution of the conflict is the premise on which the US bases its cross-strait policy.
He added that all those responsible for maintaining peace in the region should not pour oil on the fire. It is clear that "peace" is the keynote of the US' cross-strait policy. The statements of Armitage and Shaheen are consistent with one another.
Taiwan has never intended to launch war to change the status quo. All domestic reform has been conducted peacefully. The current government has never used violent means to punish the opposition. The "five noes" policy President Chen unveiled at his inauguration is based on the premise that China will also make an effort to maintain peaceful relations.
But if Beijing aims at changing the status quo by repeatedly threatening Taiwan with the use of military force, wantonly interfering in Taiwan's domestic politics and opposing Taiwan's push for political reforms to eliminate instability and strengthen democracy, then Taiwan would be forced to adopt counteractive measures -- peacefully, of course.
As a leader of world democracy, the US would support Taiwan's embrace of peace and democracy and stop China from imposing its totalitarian system on Taiwan through war. But in return, Taiwan must strengthen its communications with the US, and at the same time understand the difficulties facing the US. This would help reinforce Taiwan's friendship with the US and promote stability and peace across the Taiwan Strait.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
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
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
RSS