Why is China so angry with President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁)? Because he is not delivering Taiwan on a platter. Otherwise he appears quite reasonable, even from a Chinese viewpoint. For instance, in his recent inauguration address he scrupulously avoided the question of independence for Taiwan. He simply sought Beijing's cooperation "to guarantee there will be no unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait." Indeed, he hasn't ruled out "any possibility, [for relations between Taiwan and China, including unification] so long as there is the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan."
For all his efforts at moderation, Beijing has branded his "provocative pro-independence activities [as] the biggest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait." It has declared that "we will absolutely not tolerate Taiwan's independence" and would crush it "at any cost."
The sub-text of this harsh message is that Beijing doesn't trust Chen, no matter what he says. They also feel frustrated at the lack of credible political alternatives in Taiwan to advance China's unification goal. Indeed, Chen has consolidated his position by polling about 11 percent more votes than in 2000.
Taiwanese may not all be keen on formal independence for their country, but they certainly like to forge their own identity. In Chen's words, "We must seek to create an identity with this land and a common memory and to build a new and unified sense of shared destiny."
And this is what bugs China. In Beijing's view, this is clever semantics advancing the goal of an independent Taiwan. Hence the need for constant haranguing and warnings of disaster ahead if Taipei were to cross the line.
But such threats are counter-productive because "this will only serve to drive the hearts of the Taiwanese people further away and widen the divide in the Strait."
Apparently, Beijing thinks that such threats will work. First, because it will frighten Taiwanese people and erode Chen's position. So far, though, it hasn't worked. He polled significantly better that he did last time. Second, it is designed to weaken US commitment under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. By raising the temperature on Taiwan, Beijing hopes to use its increased leverage from the US' present difficult political and military situation to its advantage. So far this hasn't worked either.
Apparently, Taipei has been under US pressure not to provoke China and Chen had to take that into account. But, at the same time, US-Taiwan military cooperation is increasing and the US is keen to sell advanced weaponry to Taiwan. Indeed, the US House of Representatives has passed legislation to broaden military contacts with Taiwan.
Ever since Sino-US relations were normalized in the late 1970s, Beijing has sought to pursue its Taiwan policy at two levels: first, US facilitation of China's unification agenda, and second, military threats to assert its intent.
It might be recalled that the process of normalization of US-China relations, beginning in the early 70s and culminating with diplomatic ties in the late 70s, began against the backdrop of a shared perception of a Soviet threat between the two countries. This made them strategic partners.
In this larger scheme of things, Taiwan was downgraded as an issue. It was, therefore, a shock of sorts to Beijing when Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 to underline US commitment to help defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. But China vigorously sought in the 80s to curtail and, hopefully, bring to an end US military sales to Taiwan.
During the Cold War when the Soviet Union got increasingly bogged down in Afghanistan and then US president Ronald Reagan upped the ante by talking of the "evil empire" and missile defense ("Star Wars"), Beijing sought to maximize its leverage as a strategic partner to influence America's Taiwan policy. Its thrust was that since the US was committed to the "one China" principle, it might as well work to strengthen the Sino-US strategic partnership.
But it never worked out because US commitment to the "one China" principle was predicated on peaceful reunification, which essentially meant that Beijing and Taipei needed to sort this out between themselves. But China remained opposed to this, and still is. Taiwan is, therefore, left with no option but to accept Beijing's terms with, at best, the status of an autonomous province.
While Beijing was seeking the unification of Taiwan by any means, two things happened to weaken its position. The first was the Tiananmen Square Massacre of June 1989, which created an enormous backlash in the US against China's communist leadership. The second was the collapse of the Soviet Union, which undermined the much-vaunted US-China "strategic partnership" against the now moribund communist empire.
All through the 1990s the Sino-US relationship was marked by strategic ambiguity. Regarding Taiwan, China sought to test US resolve by exercising its military muscle in the Taiwan Strait during the 1996 presidential election. It found US commitment to defend Taiwan unchanged when then president Bill Clinton moved in two aircraft carriers to deter China from undertaking any military adventure.
Under President George W. Bush, the relationship faced a crisis during the spy plane incident when China impounded the US plane and its crew. The incident ended with Washington issuing an apology of sorts in exchange for the return of its personnel. Things, however, changed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as China became generally more cooperative with the US on Afghanistan and Iraq.
As during the 1970s, Beijing is once again seeking a quid pro quo of sorts on Taiwan, and was, therefore, not impressed when Washington gently chided it for its harsh language against Chen's moderate inauguration address.
But this can be expected when rhetoric takes over policy. There might be more of it in the near future if Beijing clings to its rigid position on Taiwan. There are too many imponderables, however, for China to risk a military invasion of Taiwan.
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
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