As the presidential inauguration approaches, the whole world, especially the US and China, is carefully watching to see what messages President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) will deliver in his inaugural speech that might affect Taipei-Washington-Beijing relations.
Washington is not simply waiting around for Chen to elaborate on his agenda for a new constitution by 2006. The Bush administration is making a tremendous effort to exert its influence -- through diplomatic pressure as well as through the media -- to redirect Chen's cross-strait policy.
At the heart of US concerns is how Chen will manage cross-strait relations while rewriting the Constitution, but without giving the impression that he is unilaterally changing the status quo.
The Bush administration has so far found Chen's rationale for implementing constitutional revision through referendums unconvincing. There are clearly limits to what the US will support when it comes to constitutional reform. US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly told a hearing on Capitol Hill that "the US does not support independence for Taiwan or unilateral moves that would change the status quo as we define it." In other words, the US will watch every step Chen makes, and will feel free to comment whenever it feels he is crossing the line.
But can the status quo be solely judged by what Taiwan can and cannot do? What about the authoritarian regime across the Taiwan Strait that has never renounced the use of force against this nation? The "status quo" is a growing number of missiles deployed along China's southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The status quo is Beijing's relentless effort to sabotage Taiwan's sovereignty by promoting its ideas of "one China" and "one country, two systems."
It is China's relentless saber-rattling and diplomatic squeezing that has lead to a growing anti-China sentiment and the rise of Taiwanese consciousness. This is the origin of potential changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
Washington may ignore the danger inherent in Beijing's efforts to restrain Taiwan, but it should not portray Chen's efforts to consolidate democracy as an attempt to pursue independence. Chen reiterated during the recent election campaign that a new constitution would not change the status quo or the name and territory of the Republic of China. Washington should trust Taiwan and show it more respect if Chen incorporates such a pledge in his May 20 speech.
The Bush administration has long argued that Beijing is a lot more uncontrollable than Taiwan and therefore Taipei should refrain from rocking the boat. This notion is neither persuasive nor respectful of Taiwan's democratization. The double standards of the US are clear: it treats Taiwan's democratically elected president as a reckless troublemaker while sycophantically hosting China's leaders. It should apologize to the people of Taiwan for trying to deprive them of their right to say no to China.
Taipei and Washington should work on strengthen-ing bilateral communication over the next four years. The Bush administration must also contemplate the extent to which the US could strike a balance between safeguarding its national interests and those of democratic Taiwan while trying to build constructive and candid relations with China.
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