Regarding Bonnie Glaser's article ("Is a Chen-Hu Summit Desirable?" June 16, page 8), it is for the most part an uninspired rehash of the aspirations of business leaders on all sides to see an increase in commerce between Taiwan and China as so-called "initial steps" to "build trust" as a prelude to some resolution of the cross-strait situation.
Glaser suggests promoting economic ties as a means of defusing tensions. Of course, from a unificationist's standpoint, that is a good strategy. In fact, it is the preferred method of ensuring unification, as further entangling economic ties will make independence down the road that much more difficult, if not impossible.
The trouble with Glaser's approach, and the approach of a myriad other dreamers who hope earnestly for Taiwan to simply disappear into communist China's bosom, ending cross-strait tensions, and opening the way for exploitation without limit of China's vast untapped markets, is that the approach assumes the final solution will be unification.
That, of course, is dead wrong. No negotiation can ever take place in good faith if one party says "I won't talk to you unless you agree to my position in advance." That is, and has been communist China's position regarding talking to President Chen Shui-bian (
Communist dictatorships don't take chances on negotiations (or elections, or much else). Hong Kong is a good example. Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang (
To ensure victory in Tibet, China kidnapped the Panchen Lama, and replaced him with a communist puppet. To assure itself of support in countering Taiwan independence (including decidedly anti-democratic proclamations from French President Jacques Chirac), China has used economic blackmail against just about every country on earth, including the US. This being the case, Hu will never sit down with Chen in an unscripted discussion or negotiation. Only when the cards are in its favor, and China is assured of Taiwan's capture, will that happen.
As for Glaser's concluding comments, they are a despicable example of the lengths to which CSIS will go to promote China, despite it being a communist dictatorship. In her conclusion, Glaser suggests the US would love to see Taiwan unify with China, and that Washington "would welcome the elimination of the danger of a war in which it is likely to be involved, and in which US interests would almost certainly be adversely affected." This suggestion is wishful and abhorrent thinking, and is decidedly not Washington's current (or historical) thinking.
Glaser blithely expresses her high hopes for the demise of freedom for 23 million Taiwanese (there is no other possible outcome from "unification," to wit Hong Kong's farcical attempt at so-called "democracy"), as if she were describing ordering a salad.
I suggest that she should live as a communist for a while before suggesting that an entire nation, its history, culture, language, economy, democracy and children surrender to the single most brutal communist dictatorship in human history. Her views, and the views of CSIS, do not represent the majority view in the US, in particular the views of this writer.
I deplore the notion that my country would be willing to sacrifice Taiwan for a good night's sleep. That Glaser casually suggests this is true, and moreover, desirable, is morally reprehensible and indefensible.
Lee Long-hwa
United States
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