On Oct. 25, US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave interviews to two cable TV networks while in Beijing. His statements about Taiwan created a strong negative reaction in Taiwan.
To Hong Kong's Phoenix TV, Powell said: "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
To CNN International, he said: "We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking."
The first statement denies the reality that Taiwan is a de facto independent nation which exercises exclusive, effective control over its territory.
Taiwan possesses all attributes of a state: territory, population, government and capacity to engage in foreign relations.
Perhaps Powell was referring to the lack of diplomatic relations between Washington and Taipei. But lack of recognition by the US does not ipso facto mean Taiwan is not sovereign.
Between 1949 and 1979 the US did not recognize the Beijing government, but the People's Republic of China (PRC) was nonetheless a sovereign state.
The denial of Taiwan's sovereignty makes sense only as laying the ground for the second statement, ie, the PRC, the US and Taiwan all seek eventual "reunification," a remark which is full of factual errors.
First of all, Taiwan has not been a part of China legally since 1895, when the Qing dynasty ceded the island to Japan in perpetuity. The PRC has never ruled Taiwan.
The word "reunification" is a misnomer used by Beijing to mislead. The proper word is annexation. Second, the majority of Taiwanese reject unification with China.
The most recent poll by the Mainland Affairs Council shows that fewer than 2 percent of Taiwanese want unification now and only 11 percent want it later; 24 percent prefer formal independence and the rest want to maintain the status quo.
Longstanding US policy has been to seek a peaceful resolution to the dispute between Taiwan and the PRC with the consent of the people of Taiwan. The US does not seek to dictate any particular outcome.
The denigration of Taiwan's sovereignty, however, was not retracted by the State Department.
In his daily press briefing on Oct. 25, Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli stated: "As far as Taiwan sovereignty goes ... The words the Secretary used accurately reflected our longstanding policy on Taiwan's status."
There is no question Powell's remarks have caused great consternation and anxiety in Taipei.
The opposition parties were certainly given ammunition to continue their obstruction of the bill to purchase the arms package offered by the US in 2001.
If the US policy is to seek annexation of Taiwan by China, then why should Taiwan bother with the expensive US weapons package? The government's efforts to strengthen the national will to defend Taiwan's sovereignty and freedom have also been made more difficult.
Into this battered Washington-Taipei relationship, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has hurled a devastating bomb.
On Dec. 10, the eve of Taiwan's elections for the Legislative Yuan, Armitage was interviewed on PBS.
On Dec. 22 when the interview was aired again, the news was picked up in Taipei and precipitated another uproar.
Armitage made four comments about Taiwan, one of which clearly contradicts basic US policy and represents an egregious lack of judgment.
The first remark is that Taiwan is "probably the biggest landmine" in Washington's ties with Beijing.
It is not clear whether Armitage meant Taiwan could scuttle China's peaceful rise or could trigger a military conflict between the US and China.
The implication seems to be that Taiwan is a troublemaker in otherwise smooth US-China relations.
While this notion is popular among certain circles in Washington, it is patently unfair. It is China which is steadily developing its capability to quickly subdue Taiwan with a blitzkrieg before the US can respond.
China is also building up a nuclear strike force which can hit US forces deployed in East Asia, as well as the US homeland.
To an unbiased observer, it should be obvious which party is the troublemaker.
Armitage's second remark that the Taiwan Relations Act does not require the US to defend Taiwan is technically correct.
However, his remark contradicts US President George W. Bush's April 2001 promise that the US will help defend Taiwan, whatever it takes.
Soon after Bush criticized President Chen Shui-bian (
The third remark that the US Congress has to decide whether to defend Taiwan is a moot point. Congress is an unwieldy instrument for such a decision.
In practice, the president will make the decision and later seek Congress' support.
It is puzzling why Armitage made this comment. Perhaps he is trying to find an excuse for the executive branch to dilly-dally while the People's Liberation Army completes its conquest of Taiwan.
Armitage's last remark is the most critical. It affects not only Taiwan's future status, but also peace in the Taiwan Strait, the viability of the US-Japan military alliance, and ultimately the US' prospects for deterring a nuclear attack on its homeland.
In addition to citing the Taiwan Relations Act and the three communiques, Armitage said: "We all agree there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China."
Then on Dec. 22, Richard Boucher explained in Washington that all Armitage had done was to "restate US policy in very familiar terms."
Actually both Armitage and Boucher have committed a grave error which, if not promptly rectified, will fundamentally alter the trilateral relations between the US, Taiwan and China, to the sole advantage of China.
The precise language of the Shanghai Communique reads as follows:
"The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."
Armitage has perverted the Shanghai Communique in three ways. First, the word "acknowledge" means "taking note of." Unlike the word "recognize" it does not connote acceptance or agreement.
Second, when the communique was adopted in 1972, Taiwan was under Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) rule by martial law.
The "Chinese" at that time referred to Chiang's Nationalist government. Since the late 1980s Taiwan has evolved into a thriving democracy where citizens can now express their views on Taiwan's sovereignty status.
Today a great majority of Taiwanese believe that Taiwan is a sovereign state, separate from China, and they prefer to keep that status quo.
So the Shanghai Communique is an outdated relic, kept alive solely to prevent China's territorial expansionism from erupting into violence.
Finally, when Armitage said that we all agree Taiwan is part of China, the word "we" in that context could only mean the US or the US and the PRC together.
But the communique referred to the Chinese position. It was silent on the US position. Now Armitage has adopted the PRC's position. This is a momentous ceding of vital US national interests to the PRC.
Unlike some officials in Foggy Bottom [location of the US Department of State], Bush has a keen grasp of the large geostrategic picture.
This is why the last Quadrennial Strategic Review of the Defense Department stressed the need to deploy greater US military power in the Asian and Western Pacific region.
That is why, even while the US is preoccupied with Iraq, the development of an anti-missile system in cooperation with Japan is moving forward. Bush aims to maintain a military balance which favors freedom.
If Taiwan were to be forcibly annexed by China, the US-Japan alliance will be destroyed and China will emerge as the hegemon of all Asia. Some scholars claim that China will be satisfied with regional dominance.
But power is like money, it either grows or shrinks but rarely remains static. It is inevitable that a rising China will challenge the US dominance of the world, especially given its aggrieved nationalism and the deeply ingrained idea that as the Middle Kingdom, China is destined to rule all nations under heaven.
The greatest threat to US homeland security is not terrorism or North Korea but a surprise nuclear attack by a China empowered by US complacency and lack of foresight.
So what should the White House do to reverse the follies of the State Department?
First, reiterate the US policy correctly and publicly to cancel out the serious misstatements.
Second, reaffirm US resolve to intervene if China were to launch an unprovoked attack on Taiwan, in accordance with Washington's own definition of what constitutes provocation.
Third, vigorously oppose China's proposed anti-secession law, which is a provocative effort to unilaterally change the status quo.
And finally, reinforce US military presence in the Western Pacific, including constant stationing of at least two aircraft carrier battlegroups and establishment of permanent air and naval bases closer to the Taiwan Strait.
Tension is steadily rising in the Taiwan Strait as China endeavors to shift the status quo in its favor.
What is most likely to cause an invasion of Taiwan is not Chen's "provocation," but a wishy-washy US policy stance which leads Beijing to calculate that the US will stand aside and let the People's Liberation Army have its way.
Washington and Taipei must work closely together with higher-level contacts to deter a catastrophe which would be detrimental to the interests of all parties.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
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