The issue of Taiwan and China signing an "interim agreement" has again come under some discussion as a result of the recent trips to China by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
This concept is the guiding principle of the cross-strait "interim agreement" proposed by Kenneth Lieberthal in 1998 when he was senior director for Asia at the US National Security Council. The idea was to have an agreement in which -- for a period of 50 years -- Taiwan would not declare independence and China would not use military force against Taiwan.
In itself, the spirit of "no independence, no use of force" would seem to maintain the political status quo, with neither Taiwan formally declaring a change in political status nor China unilaterally imposing unification.
At first glance the idea may seem worth contemplating. But the idea of maintaining the status quo in Taiwan's cross-strait policy -- and even in US-Taiwan policy -- assumes ambiguity as to what that status quo really is.
To some people, whether Taiwan currently is the Republic of China, part of China or an independent sovereign state is subject to multiple interpretations.
The problem with the "interim agreement" is that it requires Taiwan to acknowledge that it is part of China, thereby ending any ambiguity and sealing the fate of Taiwan at the end of the 50-year period.
In other words, unification would no longer be just an option, the acceptance of which would require the approval of the people of Taiwan. What a price to pay for 50 years of peace.
In view of the country's level of political democratization, it would be foolish to think that any single politician, including the president himself, has the power and authority to decide on the nation's future by signing such an agreement without the consent of the people of Taiwan.
A recent article published in the Liberty Times indicated that former US president Bill Clinton, during a meeting with President Chen Shui-bian (
Indeed, the right of future generations to say "no" to unification would be effectively stripped away. Some say that Chen, in the second term of his presidency, is hoping to create a place for himself in the history books. However, signing an "interim agreement" would certainly not earn him the chapter that he desires.
Finally, how would this supposed interim agreement be enforced? The original idea was to have the US serve as a witness to the agreement, implying that it would have to step in if China went back on its word and used force.
However, the US already opposes the use of force by China against Taiwan. If that in itself is not enough to keep China from using force, how will signing an interim agreement help?
There is no simple and straightforward answer to what constitutes "independence." It is indisputable that Taiwan has de facto political independence. Does "no independence" then simply mean no new name and no new constitution?
Even if Taipei were to sign an agreement, if Beijing fails to see eye-to-eye with it on these issues Taiwan could still find itself living under the threat of invasion, since any action it takes could be unilaterally interpreted by Beijing as "pro-independence."
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS