In his first interviews with the international media since the election, President Chen Shui-bian (
For years, China has portrayed its relations with Taiwan as a "domestic affair" and opposed outside interference, especially from Washington. Nevertheless, in the past couple of months Beijing attempted a new strategy of putting pressure on Taipei by means of the US' influence, largely due to Chen's push to hold a referendum.
The Chinese leaders learned some valuable lessons from their saber-rattling and verbal intimidation ahead of the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. The more Beijing resorted to missile threats and diplomatic pressure, the more likely it was to ensure a result opposite to the one it wanted. Therefore, the only way of reducing the possibility of a Chen victory was to team up with Washington in denouncing the referendum.
Beijing's about-face was highlighted by US President George Bush's meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
exchanges on how to deal with Taiwan.
Now, with a new mandate, Chen has pledged to fulfill his campaign promises by activating the peace framework and restarting cross-strait dialogue. The peace framework, as described by Chen, is aimed at replacing both sides' current political inflexibility. Chen has suggested that if Beijing puts aside its "one China" principle and he in turn would put aside his formula of "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait. Beijing and Taipei could reopen bilateral talks based on peace and stability.
What's good about such a peace framework in terms of international audience? Chen argued that it would make future cross-strait interaction a lot more predictable and manageable. The international community could monitor or even facilitate cross-strait dialogue. This framework by its very nature echoes international anticipation of a constructive Taiwan-China relationship promoting peace.
What role should the US play in the new cross-strait situation? Peace and stability not only promote a secure and prosperous Asia-Pacific region, but also enable China to continue its reforms, which coincides with US interests. For its part, the US should uphold its commitment to the security of Taiwan, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, by strengthening the safety of the nation as a whole and by providing firm political support.
The US stated quite clearly in its "six assurances" of 1982 that it would not be a mediator between Taiwan and China, and this policy has not changed. However, the role of the mediator could be indirect. Washington should be more positive and constructive in securing stability and initiating the resumption of cross-strait dialogue.
Despite emphasizing the significance of respecting the free will of the Taiwanese people, the US should persuade Beijing to pragmatically consider Chen's offer of building a peace framework.
Under such a framework, the US would play the role of promoting dialogue between the two sides of the Strait in a balanced manner. Washington should utilize every possible and private channel to encourage Beijing's leaders to sit down at the negotiating table.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS