In the face of China's growing military threat, President Chen Shui-bian (
The first is to ensure that "the democracy of Taiwan -- a core member of the world's community of democracies -- is not threatened or destroyed by China through non-peaceful means." The second is to "join with the other members of the global `community of democracies' in assisting non-democratic nations, such as China, to develop democracy." The third is "to explore ways to normalize relations and resume dialogue with China under a peace and stability framework for cross-strait interaction, thereby promoting stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region."
This "new balance" is a framework being promoted by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, and it is based on the twin tenets of Taiwanese democracy and cross-strait peace. In the past, the cross-strait issue has been confined to the unification-independence debate.
During the rule of Chiang kai-shek (
In the Chiang era, the cross-strait issue was viewed as an internal matter for China, but under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) it evolved into what he called "special state-to-state" relations. From this point on, the power struggle between the KMT and the CCP morphed into something altogether different -- from a battle for who would rule all of China, to a fight over Taiwan's sovereignty.
The fundamental nature of China-Taiwan relations has now changed. China should now treat Taiwan as an independent nation of equal status. This is the only way it can comprehensively resolve the ongoing conflict and establish a structure for good relations.
Unfortunately, Chinese leaders are still stuck in outmoded ideas of a power struggle with Taiwan. China has proposed numerous absurd policies under the "one China" paradigm in their efforts to appeal to the Taiwanese people. At the same time, Beijing is expanding its military and enhancing its deployments in an effort to force Taiwan's submission through the threat of attack.
Most worrying is that the international community -- whether because of a misunderstanding of history or because they have succumbed to Chinese pressure -- is unable to see the real situation in the Taiwan Strait, and continues to see the cross-strait issue as a power struggle. As a result, Taiwan's ability to survive in the international community is undermined.
The concept of a new power balance in the Strait breaks through the "one China" lie by telling the international community that the reality of the situation is that there is one country on each side of the Strait. It also identifies Taiwan's sovereignty and independence with its democracy by highlighting the difference between a system of savage communism and a civilized liberal democracy, and stressing that the two countries have no jurisdiction over each other.
In other words, the conflict between China and Taiwan involve not only a struggle over sovereignty, but also a contradiction between communism and democracy. China's threat to Taiwan is a threat to all democratic countries. Moreover, China's missiles can already reach India, Russia, the entire US, Australia and New Zealand. This is proof that China's rise is not peaceful, but rather a serious threat to global stability.
We cannot deny the great imbalance in national power between Taiwan and China. Taiwan must side with democratic countries such as the US, Japan and the EU member states to be able to resist China's ambition to annex Taiwan.
When Chen proposed the concept of a new power balance, he linked Taiwanese democracy to cross-strait peace, and tied Taiwanese security to the development and stability of democratic countries around the world. This is praiseworthy. His goal in proposing this concept in the face of China's military threat was not only to defend Taiwan, but to become a pillar of strength for democratic states around the world who are also resisting communist totalitarianism.
Whether we look to history or international law, Taiwan's sovereignty and independence are undeniable facts. Given Taiwan's disadvantages, economic development and a more robust national defense remain the only ways to guarantee that our sovereignty will not be violated.
Translated by Perry Svensson and Ian Bartholomew
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