Though the primaries have not been completed, it is becoming increasingly likely that the candidates for the presidential election in the US this coming November will be President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. The two political parties will soon begin putting together their respective platforms, with the primary focus on domestic issues (taxes, employment, homeland security, social welfare), but close behind will be Iraq and the problematic state of US international relationships.
Cross-strait issues, as in the past, will likely be included, but well buried in the debate about international relations. By the time US elections take place, Taiwan's attention will be on the Legislative Yuan elections in December.
On the Democratic side, most of the candidates in the primaries have voiced strong support for Taiwan. The leading contender on the Democratic side, however, when responding to a question, said that he was a strong supporter of the "one China" policy, and that Taiwan should consider the "one country, two systems" offer.
That view is not likely to make it to the Democratic platform, however. Few of his senatorial comrades are familiar with details of the cross-strait issues, but it was not encouraging to hear a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggest the people of Taiwan should "use the framework of one country, two systems" to solve cross-strait problems. One has to hope his advisers will eventually bring his knowledge about Taiwan closer to reality.
On the Republican side, Bush has made a strong case for the high priority the US must have in expanding and strengthening democracy around the world. He gets full support for this from Congress and the American public. On this point, Taiwan's security shield, after the military and the weapons they can procure, is democracy. With the changing national priorities that resulted from Taiwan's democratization, however, military hardware is more difficult to acquire and democracy continues to be challenged by China.
To add to the complexity of America's cross-strait policies is the growing need for the US to work more closely with China on specific issues such as North Korea. So far, the US has maintained a balanced approach to the two sides in the always sensitive cross-strait issue. By doing so, the Bush administration also maintains the support of the American voters on this subject. But the mixture of interests that America has will make the wording used on cross-strait policies in both political platforms a goldmine (or a minefield) of interesting rhetoric.
As the many experts on China and Taiwan in the US prepare papers or briefings for candidates and party positions for the next elections, many of the positions emanating from Taiwan and China will influence what the experts write. For Taiwan, most of what they hear or read may come from the views of academics and officials, but the most influential will likely be the Taiwan media. What these same people hear or read from China will be the organized and narrow view from the government-controlled media and officials. That is an advantage for China.
The formal public debate in Taipei by the two candidates for the presidency, on the other hand, is an advantage for Taiwan. It is not what was said, so much as simply having an open, orderly and fairly run debate by respected individuals and organizations. It established a precedent that is good for the people of Taiwan while also assuring people abroad that democracy is deeply embedded.
Also, the referendum and discussion about constitutional change can demonstrate the depth and maturity of the democracy that has been achieved. The process of doing this without raising tensions while accomplishing an objective is not new for Taiwan. Localization of top official positions in government, acceptance of election results, direct elections, downsizing the government -- all have been accomplished gradually and peacefully, although not always without anxiety in Washington and opposition in Beijing.
This same strategy of gradually making needed changes to keep pace with realities will come to be accepted as not being provocative or changing the cross-strait status quo. It may have been helpful when the long-standing objective of using referendums as a means of change arose, and at the same time provide a universally recognized right for people to more directly play a role in governance.
China had succeeded in convincing China experts abroad that referendums for Taiwan were intolerable. Since this issue was not previously an active problem, the fact that holding a referendum is a basic human right employed by democracies worldwide simply was not considered. In fact, "democracy," from its Greek origins, connotes individual voting on each issue. We now call it a referendum.
For the most part, on the referendum issue, reason has prevailed, and though some anxiety persists, increasingly it is accepted that a wisely considered use of referendums does not change relationships between the US, Taiwan and China, nor threaten a unilateral change of status that could result in bloodshed.
This does not do much for insisting on "maintaining the status quo," except perhaps to encourage a change in nomenclature. This is needed. No change, which is what status quo means, historically has always been the strategy for defeat. Perhaps the situation could be described as "maintain peaceful change." One can also hope that China, which has changed its attitude toward the international community in many ways, will begin to accept that the "one China" principle, "one country, two systems," and the vast number of "compatriots on Taiwan" that supposedly want unification are things of the past.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS