Senator John Kerry, I respect you and I share many of your visions, but this Democratic platform is not good enough: I expect a brighter, more bold vision from you.
The US Democratic Party held its convention in Boston, and selected Kerry and Senator John Edwards as its candidates for the November presidential election. In the platform that the party adopted, "Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World" the convention reiterated the "one China" policy, re-emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution (rightly so) and restated the US commitment to provide Taiwan with defensive arms.
Reiterating the worn-out "one China" mantra does not do justice to the tremendous political transition that Taiwan has gone through during the past 30 years: three decades ago, there were two regimes claiming to be the rightful government of China: the Communist regime in Beijing and Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) Chinese Nationalist regime in Taipei. The international community was forced to make a choice between the two, and recognized Beijing as the government representing China. Chiang's government obviously did not represent China, and indeed did not even represent the Taiwanese people.
Since then, however, Taiwanese people have brought about human rights and democracy in Taiwan. Only since 1996 have the people of Taiwan been able to elect their president. The fundamental difference between 30 years ago and the present time is that the government in Taipei does not claim to represent China anymore, but has -- through the democratic process -- established its legitimacy as the government of Taiwan.
This fundamental difference requires a significant shift in US policy -- and the policy of other nations around the world as well: Yes, there is "one China" -- the PRC with its government in Beijing -- but there is also "one Taiwan" -- with its government in Taipei -- that deserves recognition as a full and equal member of the international community.
The rulers in Beijing need to realize that the "new" Taiwan is not its "rival" -- a dimwitted and totally outdated concept which continues to be perpetuated by newswires such as AP, UPI and Reuters. The government in Taipei has stated clearly that it wants to live in peace with all of its neighbors, including China, so it is not China's "rival."
The international community needs to realize that Taiwan did not "split off from China," an equally silly misconception we see written time and again by AP, UPI and Reuters. Taiwan was not part of China in the first place: it was a Japanese colony, occupied by the losing side of the Chinese Civil War, and its people were subjected to some 40 years of martial law.
Senator Kerry, Taiwanese people of course favor a peaceful resolution. They don't want US soldiers to die in a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. But it must be clear that a peaceful resolution can only be achieved if the US stands firm in the face of China's aggression. It would be a good first step if you would give a clear signal to China that its 550 missiles aimed at Taiwan and its threatening language and military moves are totally unacceptable. The weak-kneed "strategic ambiguity" as practiced by former president Bill Clinton will only embolden China's bullying against Taiwan. Thus, something like US President George W. Bush's "whatever it takes" isn't so bad after all.
But that is not good enough. Senator Kerry needs to adopt some out-of-the-box thinking. The "status quo" is a dead-end street, which only perpetuates decades-old hostilities stemming from a Chinese Civil War in which most Taiwanese people had no part.
Taiwan would like the US to go back to the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 to 1952, concluded between the Allied Forces and Japan, when Japan ceded sovereignty over Taiwan. But it was not decided to whom the sovereignty of the country was to be given. It was stated that "the future status of Taiwan is to be determined in due time, in accord with the purposes and principles of the UN as laid down in the Charter of the UN." Taiwan's international status was left undetermined.
The US -- and other members of the world community -- should keep the promise made at San Francisco. That treaty was and remains the only international treaty dealing with Taiwan's status. Any communique concluded between other governments (including the US and China) without any democratic representation of the Taiwanese people should in no way have any bearing on the future of Taiwan.
Senator Kerry, you should remain faithful to the basic principles on which the US was founded and support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the people of Taiwan through normalization of relations between the US and Taiwan. Many countries will follow your example, and China will come to the realization that peaceful coexistence between the two nations is in its interest.
Chen Mei-chin is editor of Taiwan Communique, an international publication established in Washington.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS