When asked during a television interview what he thought the "landmines" were in terms of US-China relations, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage replied, "Taiwan," adding that, "Taiwan is probably the biggest landmine." So, will the US actually come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack by China? To this, Armitage's answer was that the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA,
It is difficult to find fault in what he actually said here, but what is clear from all this is first that the US is concerned about the rise of China; secondly, that a degree of conflict has arisen between the US and China; and third, that the issue of a potential "landmine" exploding is a crucial point.
In other words, the US is well aware of the threat posed by the rise of China, otherwise there would be no tension between them. At most, Taiwan is the "biggest" possible cause of trouble flaring.
As a result, the US' true focus is not the Taiwan question but the threat of China, and Taiwan is merely a landmine placed between the two giants. It is only when the situation is looked at in this light that one can understand the US standpoint on the Taiwan question, the TRA and US-China-Taiwan relations.
The TRA was passed in both houses of the US Congress, and declares that "peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States," and that to have "boycotts and embargoes" against Taiwan are "a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area," and are therefore "of grave concern to the United States."
Therefore, if the US comes to the defense of Taiwan, it will be doing so out of consideration of its own national interest.
Naturally, America has the choice of not defending Taiwan, should it relinquish its interests in the West Pacific region. To put it more clearly, if the US sells the "Taiwan landmine" down the river, and scraps the TRA, they will be losing the Western Pacific Region as a sphere of influence. This will be tantamount to making the same errors they committed 50 years ago, and creating a monster that they cannot control.
In May 1946, Chiang Kai-shek's (
Here, he could have struck a decisive blow against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but called a ceasefire under pressure from US General George Marshall.
This gave the communists time to rest and regroup, and three years later communist China became a reality.
With a little assistance from China, the Soviet Union was able to extend into Asia, in addition to the influence it had in Europe and China itself. Also, Kim Il-sung (
Even today North Korea presents a major challenge to the US: they should have learned their lesson the first time around. America's mistakes of half a century ago have created the crisis that exists between China and Taiwan. Will the US make a similar mistake again? America has already lost friends in Europe -- is the same thing going to happen in Asia as well? This is not just something for the White House to think about: Congress must take note, too.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly Magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS