In response to US President George W. Bush's statement last week that he opposes comments or actions by President Chen Shui-bian (
Chen revealed his feelings toward Bush when a CNN correspondent asked if he "felt hurt, frustrated or even infringed by what Bush said." Without challenging Bush as to why he echoed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's (溫家寶) condemnation of Taiwan's attempts to "split with the mother land," Chen said he appreciated the Bush administration's earlier pledge to do "whatever it takes to defend Taiwan" and insisted that US-Taiwan relations were stable.
There is no doubt that the US and Taiwan share universal values of democracy, freedom and hu-man rights, but when it comes to the question of national interests, it is ironic that such an "alliance of values" can be distorted.
The notion that Chen's push for a "defensive referendum" to deter China's missile threat and military force constitutes an explicit action to change the status quo is nonsense.
What exactly is the status quo? Who is entitled to define the status quo? The status quo of the Strait is a world in which an authoritarian regime refuses to renounce the use of force against a democratic country. The status quo is a growing number of missiles deployed alongside China's southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The status quo is Bei-jing's relentless efforts to sabotage Taiwan's sovereignty by promoting its own ideas of "one China" and "one country, two systems."
China's unilateral actions to intimidate Taiwan are clearly changing the status quo and therefore coincide with the situation contained in Article 17 of the Referendum Law (公民投票法),which states that, "the president has the rights to hold a defensive referendum when the nation is faced with an external threat or a change to its sovereignty, through resolution by the Executive Yuan."
Washington may overlook the danger that Chen believes exists and portray Chen's concerns as nothing but election talk. Nevertheless, 23 million Taiwanese cannot wait until such a threat becomes a clear danger.
While the US employs double standards to brand Chen a provocative, reckless troublemaker, whom has been trying to rock the boat of Sino-US relations, it owes both a reason and an apology to Taiwan as to why its people are being deprived of the right to say no to China's saber rattling.
The "alliance of democratic values" between Taiwan and the US should be a respect of people's free will to make their own decisions. The "alliance of democratic values" should not kowtow to an authoritarian leader.
What Bush should really contemplate is the extent to which his administration can strike a balance between safeguarding the US' national interests and a fully fledged democratic Taiwan while engaging in building a constructive, candid and cooperative relations with China.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration made the wrong choice when it appeased Beijing at the expense of sacrificing its long-term commitment to Taiwan -- a country that has been steadfastly supporting a US-led campaign on global terrorism and post-Iraq humanitarian aid -- and a country that has been counting on US defense assistance to main-tain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
If international realism is indeed the only rationale behind such immoral treatment of a democratically-elected leader, then please, Mr. Bush, stop talking about how you plan to spread so-called American democracy around the world.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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