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.
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