In assessing the state of cross-strait relations, we find the US struggling to maintain the status quo. We find China, within its closed-door system, apparently struggling over whether to strengthen its use of a military threat to resolve the "Taiwan issue," or to use a soft approach to convince Taiwan to succumb. And we find Taiwan, closer than ever to being a separate national entity, struggling with the issue of moving aggressively toward a de jure resolution of its political status or more carefully maintaining the status quo. In this unsettled atmosphere, policies have become outdated and need to be reviewed.
New policy decisions about cross-strait relations are not likely to surface in the present circumstances. The US has presidential and congressional elections a few weeks away and Taiwan has a legislative election a month later. China can change, although it will take longer to discern what effect this will have. Even if there is no change in administration after the US election, there will be reviews on all sides to adjust to the different atmosphere.
China's cross-strait policies have fundamentally not changed, but the very deep change in its own environment has made those policies unsustainable. It has greater influence, but it is also becoming much more dependent on the rest of the world for its markets, capital, resources, information and know-how. It is far less free to do what it pleases. In addition, both the "one China" principle and the "one country, two systems" approach have become unacceptable, not just to the leaders, but also to the people of Taiwan.
Taiwan's transformation of its political system to a democracy is no less spectacular than China's transformation to a market economy. Furthermore, one of the most important pillars of the US-Taiwan relationship in the past was Taiwan's acceptance of maintaining a low profile to refrain from agitating China. This policy continued through the 1990s, when democratization began blossoming. But trying to maintain a low profile in a democracy where political leaders have to deal with voters' wishes was clearly becoming unsustainable. Then president Lee Teng-hui (
In more recent times, there has been some improvement in this bilateral relationship, but finding some way to effectively manage this unique system under the present circumstances and in the long term is still a work in progress. The need to expand exchanges between senior officials on both sides has become especially important.
An effort to address these outdated policies was made in 1994 in the Taiwan Policy Review. The preface explaining the reasons for conducting the review was very well done. It set forth cogently the profound changes that had taken place in Taiwan since the policy had been established 15 years before. The final results did not live up to the stated need, however. Trying to improve relations with China without changing the US' Taiwan policy, a questionable objective, prevailed.
There was never a question of officiality, however, as the US was committed to maintaining an unofficial relationship until such time as the two sides could resolve the issue of Taiwan's political status.
But the need to find ways to enhance high-level contacts in a relationship that was becoming increasingly broad and sophisticated was not met, and neither was the need to address the impact on Taiwan of the changing architecture of security, or the need for Taiwan's participation in the international community. But the momentum of its growing democracy continued nonetheless. The latter part of the 1990s saw the beginning of direct elections at all levels, the missile crisis in 1996 which awakened many to the changes and Lee's "special state-to-state" proposal, all signs of a different Taiwan developing in a different atmosphere.
Then came 2000. The change of government to a very different political party that had few resources and no experience of governing, and was faced with a hostile legislature, made progress in all areas very difficult. But during the four years that followed -- in which the Chinese government seriously erred in refusing to deal with the new rulers -- the political profile of the people in Taiwan changed dramatically. A consensus on Taiwan's identity has become closer to unity than ever before, and it is a Taiwanese identity that has emerged. The results of this year's presidential election demonstrated this.
In my judgment, there are three imperatives that need to be addressed: first a meaningful change in the US' rules of engagement. In 2000, the US administration changed as well. In terms of the US' relationship with Taiwan, it was more forthcoming than any US administration since the switch in recognition to China in 1979. But with the changing political atmosphere in Taiwan, the US "rules of engagement," which have in any event been overtaken, now face an increasingly urgent challenge that must be addressed.
If the US wants to support Taiwan's democratic system while working to prevent catastrophe ensuing from its differences with China, it must find a new set of rules for its "unofficial relationship." It must deal with Taiwan without supporting either side's claim to sovereignty. It must treat the Taiwanese government as legitimate and responsible to its people, and conduct its relationship with the country's leaders accordingly.
Second, in developing a more realistic relationship with Taiwan, democratic countries should increase pressure on China to better understand a Taiwan that is indeed different, and to develop more realistic proposals for resolving China's differences with Taiwan.
Third, an important domestic challenge for Taiwan, with its popular democracy based on the will of the people, is to develop an understanding of the dangers as well as the opportunities posed by deciding what Taiwan's future should be. The US has clearly and often reiterated that under Taiwan's democratic system, it will accept the consent of the people of Taiwan. The people must understand the responsibility they have in making such decisions.
Nat Bellocchi is a 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.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
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
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
RSS