The emergence of a national identity has led Taiwan to redefine its US policy. This could hurt US relations if domestic considerations prevail over strategic interests. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in his inauguration address on May 20, however, seemed to placate US concerns.
He promised that the revision of the Constitution would not touch on the issues of statehood and sovereignty. He also tacitly reiterated the "five noes" pledge he made four years ago.
Beneath that moderation, however, Taiwan has quietly moved toward a more aggressive foreign policy. Presidential advisor Koo Kuan-min (辜寬敏) has called on the US to revise its "one China" policy. And Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen (陳唐山) has said that the international community should respect Taiwan as a sovereign and independent nation.
The policy shift led to diplomatic tensions with the US in April. Mark Chen stressed that independence and sovereignty were Taiwan's status quo. But Washington rebuked that stance. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly said that Washington would only agree to the status quo as the US defined it.
The US definition of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is quite simple, even though the US policy may seem contradictory. In theory, Washington acknowledges the three communiques it signed with Beijing that say Taiwan is part of China. In practice, however, it considers Taiwan's status to be unresolved and is committed to help the nation defend itself under the Taiwan Relations Act.
The cross-strait status quo, according to Washington, means that China must refrain from using or threatening to use force against Taiwan, while Taiwan must avoid provoking Beijing with unilateral moves toward de facto independence.
The diplomatic status quo is reinforced by the military balance of power in the Taiwan Strait. China's weight in the status quo at first derived from the support of the majority of countries that echo the "one China" principle. But the rise of a Taiwanese identity has weakened the status quo by diminishing Beijing's bargaining power.
To regain leverage, China is trying to tip the military balance in its favor by upping the ante in the cross-strait arms race. But "balance of power" tends to be a tricky concept. If China's goal is to invade Taiwan, the balance of power is, for now, in Taipei's favor because Beijing does not have the amphibious capacity nor the adequate air cover it requires to carry out an invasion, according to a recent Pentagon report.
But if China's objective is to threaten Taiwan's integrity with its 500 missiles, then Beijing already has an edge, since Taipei hasn't acquired the Patriot anti-missile batteries offered by the Bush administration, and is still negotiating to obtain the AEGIS defense system.
The Chen administration should ask Washington to include Taiwan with Japan and South Korea in its proposed missile defense shield, because it looks unlikely that Taiwan can sustain an arms race with China in the long term.
The "one China" policy is a by-product of the Cold War. Its aim was to woo China and confront the Soviet Union with the possibility of a two-front war. But it still serves US interests. The challenge of terrorism has now replaced the Soviet threat and Washington needs China's cooperation over North Korea and the Middle East.
Were Taiwan to see cross-strait relations as a zero-sum game, it could risk the US returning to the "three noes" policy implemented by the Clinton administration. But the widening gap between US and Taiwanese interests comes from Taiwan's failure to understand the meaning of what an alliance is. The Taiwan Relations Act is a US law, not an alliance treaty, but its content turns US-Taiwan relations into a quasi alliance.
Certain statements by Taiwanese officials and the controversy over the possible dispatch of Taiwanese marines to Iraq reflected Taiwan's mismanagement of US ties. When Washington expressed its concern over constitutional reforms, some officials reacted violently by saying that the US was interfering with the nation's internal affairs.
Koo has said that Taiwan is not a colonial state of the US. True, Taiwan does not need to halt its plan to create a new Constitution simply because the US opposes it.
But an alliance, by definition, implies coordinated policies and actions. An alliance offers rights and advantages, but it also sets duties and constraints.
It also serves mutual interests. Taiwan can rely on US military aid to counter China's military threat. And Washington can check China's expansion in the South China Sea through its cooperation with Taiwan.
Chen and public opinion made it clear that Taiwan would not shed blood in the Middle East after two US congressmen introduced a resolution in May calling for the deployment of Taiwanese troops in Iraq. Yet it would be foolish to think that the US would sacrifice its grand strategy in Asia in the name of Taiwanese independence. Kelly bluntly said in April that the US wouldn't defend Taiwan under all circumstances.
No president could sell a war to the US public for the sake of Taiwanese independence. There would be a disjuncture between the perils and the benefits of such a war. US public opinion may accept a war against Chinese militarism, but that would imply a Chinese attack without Taiwanese provocation.
Taiwan must avoid an aggressive cross-strait policy if it does not want to jeopardize its relations with Washington. As such, it should focus on underground diplomacy. That would be more efficient than loud policy pronouncements.
Taiwan should increase efforts on the diplomatic front to prevent the EU from lifting its embargo on arms sales to China. Yet it should also continue to offer olive branches to China. That would help convince the US government that the Chen administration is sincere in dealing with China.
Were Beijing to reject Taipei's offers for talks over the next four years, Washington would draw its own conclusions about China's real motives and eventually upgrade the Taiwan Relations Act.
Trung Latieule is a journalist based in Paris.
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
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
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