Now that the tensions of late last year and early this year have been mitigated somewhat, perhaps it is easier to ponder why tensions had been raised, and what might be done to avoid such problems. President Chen Shui-bian's (
In Washington, the government, at least in public, had maintained a strict neutrality on the forthcoming election in Taiwan. Information and analysis received there is not publicly known, of course, but most of the China experts in the think tanks saw this "get tough" strategy as purely an election gambit, irresponsible, placing the US at risk of possible military action. They were certain that the eventual objective was independence. Words such as "moving toward independence," and that Chen was "untrustworthy," among other statements often used by China, were heard.
That there were also other very legitimate and very fundamental reasons for Chen's strategy did not seem to be explored. A referendum, for example, for the DPP was clearly a fundamental necessity. Even more important, the leadership saw some "re-engineering" of the Constitution by making fundamental changes was vital to continuing the populist democracy they now have.
So the Taiwan side saw this framework, while the US understandably saw this as an unacceptable risk for America. One could ask, why was this not discussed before it became a problem? Perhaps in some fashion it was.
On the US side, the tension eventually generated an important policy statement. Henceforth the US would involve itself more closely with changes in Taiwan's domestic political reform. In doing so, it will define what provocation is, what the status quo is, and what moves are going in the wrong direction.
This brings many questions, including very importantly, China's reactions to any of this. How the US will involve itself on domestic political issues being debated in a democracy by directly elected officials, is another. There is within this problem a legitimate element of interest by the US, as its commitments on Taiwan's security (and its less stated position on Taiwan's sovereignty), present rather important risks for the US. At the same time, however, any legitimate reform will inevitably be cast in the cross-strait context and opposed by China.
However this US policy evolves, it will be delicate to say the least. That means a better system of communicating with each other. It is in the US and Taiwan's interest and that of stability in East Asia, that there is continuous attention at senior levels to discover and address potential problems that could possibly quickly get out of control.
In the US, national security policy revolves around the State Department, the Department of Defense and the National Security Council, in various degrees of coordination. In Taiwan, the President's office and various advisors seem to make policy while the institutions of national security remain relatively uninvolved.
For the US-Taiwan relationship, especially on national security matters in the US, a cross-strait Task Group, made up of deputy assistant secretaries or their equivalent from say, the State Department, Defense Department, and the National Security Council could be tasked with producing a report to the president or a designated senior official chosen by him. The report would be based on a regular quarterly meeting of this group with their Taiwan counterparts, and would include recommendations on any action that should be addressed.
The Taiwanese side would be expected to have a similar process to assure the president or his designated senior officer would be equally informed. There is a need for the Presidential Office on both sides to be kept informed as the relationship is not only important for foreign affairs but also domestic affairs.
Taking into account the style and preferences of the two leaders -- US President George W. Bush and Chen -- a channel to discuss such matters at a level in government high enough to be heard internally by the leadership in each country -- a channel that would be acceptable to the two leaders -- is needed. But it also needs the filtering of these discussions, by the deputy assistant secretary or equivalent level officials who are close to the experts in the bureaucracy.
If one ponders the possible communications process noted above, and the events that unfolded late last year and early this year, actions that took too much time to understand might have been understood soon enough to compromise and keep unnecessary tensions from developing. Determining how to address legitimate democratic domestic developments in Taiwan, while also protecting American interests, is a formidable challenge. It doesn't need misunderstanding to make it more difficult.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS