President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) renamed the "defensive referendum" the "peace referendum" in the hope that Taiwan and China will establish a peaceful and stable interactive framework. Similarly, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), during his visit to France, said his country is developing "peaceful diplomacy." When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) visited the US last year, he even described China's rise as a "peaceful ascendancy."
Leaders from both sides are using the word "peace[ful]." But we have not seen China's "peaceful ascendancy" bring any peaceful prospect to the relationship across the Taiwan Strait.
Beijing's leaders chose the term "peaceful ascendancy" in response to the shift in US strategy. Since US President George W. Bush took office, the superpower has made efforts to realize its "imperial strategy." Through this strategy, generally called "unilateralism," the US has constantly used its military advantage to interfere around the world, establishing its global leadership and hegemonic system.
Out of fear of the US' imperial strategy and to avoid being pushed by international society to the front line vying for global leadership with the US, China has gradually adopted the concept of "peaceful ascendancy" after Hu took power, replacing the "great-power diplomacy" traditionally used during the Jiang Zemin (江澤民) era. Without the "great power" label, China can avoid the embarrassment brought by direct conflict with the US' power. Mean-while, it can maintain strategic dialogue with the US.
However, what practical strategic moves should be expected during China's "peaceful ascendancy?" Chinese academic Sun Zhe (孫哲) points out three feasible directions. First, adopt an effective approach to interaction with other nations and promote the different values and national interests of China and other nations. Second, establish early warning systems to avoid differences in assessment and to adjust the diplomatic process. And third, recapitulate experiences and continuously expand successful diplomatic cooperation in a bid to expand and deepen the foundation for interaction with other nations.
The concepts of interaction, early warning and cooperation are the basic meaning of Beijing's "peaceful ascendancy" when building diplomatic relationships.
Deplorably, although China has these diplomatic ideas, it still adopts unfriendly measures to deal with Taiwan. In addition to its traditional tactics of targeting Taiwan with missiles, refusing to relinquish the use of military force and intimidating Taiwan to accept the "one China" principle, it has been applying pressure through the international community and publicizing the discourse that "opposing referendums is opposing Taiwanese independence."
This has misled the international community into believing that Chen attempts to change the status quo and has made the Taiwanese people feel China's ascent. But this is nothing more than an "ascendancy of hege-mony." We can hardly see any "peaceful ascendancy."
During a hearing on Capitol Hill, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Randall Schriver pointed out that now only 6 percent of Taiwanese people accept unification with China and 20 percent support independence. Although a majority of people tend to prefer maintaining the status quo, aren't the increase and decrease in supporters for independence and unification caused by China's missile intimidation? If Beijing really believes this is a "peaceful ascendancy," how can they create so many supporters for Taiwanese independence?
Similarly, because China does not give up the use of military attacks against Taiwan, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless had to reiterate that the US is obliged to support Taiwan to maintain deterrent forces and to cooperate with allies to help it maintain sufficient defense capabilities. In the event of war, Taiwan would be capable of swiftly defeating China.
As long as China does not remove the missiles aimed at Taiwan and relinquish the use of military force against Taiwan, it cannot cover the fundamental of its "hegemonic ascendancy," no matter how hard it attempts to maintain a facade of "peace" in the international community.
Wang Kun-yi is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies of Tamkang University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS