President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Lunar New Year remarks that he would seriously consider abolishing the National Unification Council and seek UN membership under the name of "Taiwan" have sparked a series of domestic and international debates.
In response to Washington's complaint that Chen had come up with another "surprise" to change the cross-strait status quo, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government denied that there has been any change to Taiwan's policy, saying that Chen's comment was simply a "thought," not a foregone conclusion.
Both Washington and the pan-blue camp should consider why Chen brought up this issue at this time, instead of merely dismissing it as an explicit attempt to cross the "red line" by changing the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.
In fact, Chen's remark was a timely reminder to those who have overlooked the extent to which China has developed its military capability to sabotage Taiwan, and its continued strategy to unite with the pan-blue opposition to obstruct the DPP government.
While demanding that Chen abide by what he pledged in his 2000 inaugural speech, both the domestic audience and the international community should re-examine Chen's pledges more fairly.
Chen promised not to declare independence, not to change the national title, not to push the inclusion of the so-called "state-to-state" model in the Constitution, not to promote a referendum on changing the status quo regarding the question of independence or unification, and not to raise the question of abolishing the National Unification Council and the guidelines for national unification.
But the pledges carry a proviso: They are only valid if China has no intention of attacking Taiwan. And Beijing's aggrandizement of military power, its buildup of ballistic missiles and its authorization of the People's Liberation Army to use force against Taiwan by passing of the so-called "Anti-Secession" Law last March constitute an explicit intention and capability to attack Taiwan.
Ironically, most people tend to unilaterally and unfairly monitor Chen to check if his government has broken the promises, while ignoring the fact that China has continuously expanded its military threat against Taiwan.
A more pragmatic analysis of who exactly is attempting to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait shows that Beijing has been continuously rocking the boat while pointing the finger at Taiwan. When Taiwan complains about China's military intimidation and its political isolation campaign, the whole world often accuses Taiwan of stirring up unnecessary trouble and provoking the "rising China."
Is constantly attacking Taiwan a fair way to judge the cross-strait status quo? Is squeezing Taiwan's throat the most effective way to restrain Beijing's military rise? Can the Taiwanese people be allowed the freedom of choosing their own destiny instead of unilaterally accepting ultimate unification with China?
The main reason why Washington described Chen's announcement as a "surprise" was largely because it would draw an angry response from Beijing.
However, just because the Bush administration does not anticipate any "noise" from the Chen administration, that does not mean the Taiwanese people should pretend Beijing's threats to Taiwan are invisible.
While Washington may be blind to cross-strait reality and consider everything Chen has done to maintain Taiwan's sovereignty and independent nationhood as a threat to the national interest, the pan-blue camp's leaders should be ashamed for failing to uphold Taiwan's national interests against China's "divide and conquer" strategy.
To make things worse, the pan-blues have been brainwashing the Taiwanese with their view of cross-strait relations. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou
Ma's abuse of his overrated popularity could possibly create a "domino effect" by misleading the public into thinking that Beijing posed only a minimal military threat, thereby undermining the nation's internal unity.
If Ma and the KMT want to regain the presidency in 2008, they should tell the voters right now how they plan to deal with China's military threats. Ma should tell the voters and the international community that it is up to the 23 million Taiwanese people to decide Taiwan's future relationship with China.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS