In his Lunar New Year's address, President Chen Shui-bian (
However, some US officials do not back Chen's suggestions and have even poured cold water on them. Most Taiwanese are disappointed and frustrated with the US reaction and are now questioning why the US is so willing to please Beijing at the expense of its own founding spirit and democratic principles.
Following Chen's Lunar New Year's speech, some US officials sought to collude with the nation's pro-China media outlets and exaggerate the consequences of Chen's remarks, insinuating that US President George W. Bush was disgruntled with the contents of Chen's address. In addition, they implied that if Chen refuses to reiterate the the pledges from his 2000 and 2004 inaugural addresses, then Bush will openly reprimand Chen when he next meets Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Although we should not fear China-leaning US officials and their prejudices against Taiwan, it is worrying that the US government's unfair criticism of Chen's New Year address is a blatant violation of democratic principles. When commenting on the address, the US State Department reiterated that the US' Taiwan policy adheres to the "one China" principle and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), and abides by the three US-China Communiques. The TRA is the only one of these that is concerned with ensuring Taiwan's security and interests. The others -- the "one China" policy and the three communiques -- take care of China's immediate interests. In other words, there is a serious imbalance between US-Taiwan relations and US-China relations. It is most regrettable, in the light of this imbalance, that deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli could misconstrue Chen's desire to enter the UN under the name Taiwan as a unilateral change to the status quo. This unquestionably denies Taiwan its sovereignty, effectively shuts Taiwan out of the international community and leaves us in a political no man's land.
Sean McCormack, spokesman for the US State Department, has said that the US supports dialogue between China and Taiwan to allow the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve the issue. This is simply ridiculous. Taiwan is an independent country, completely separate from China: Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China and the two are completely different. How can one ask the people of Taiwan to negotiate with the people of China and reach a mutually acceptable solution?
The practical realities of the situation are that Taiwan has a population of 23 million to China's 1.3 billion. Surely asking these two sides to enter into negotiations is the same as asking the people of Taiwan to capitulate. What would have happened if the international community had insisted the US negotiate for a mutually acceptable solution with the people of Britain to bring an end to their war of independence? If that had happened, would the US be an independent country today?
As Chen said in Tainan several days ago, Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, and is not to be shared with the 1.3 billion people in China. The goal of cross-strait dialogue should be to promote regional stability and peace and to avoid war, not to force the Taiwanese to capitulate. Taiwan's future should be decided by its people and its right to self-governance ought to be respected by the international community.
Chen talked of scrapping the National Unification Council and the unification guidelines, of joining the UN as Taiwan and of drafting a new Constitution in order to give Taiwan something to aspire to. If Taiwan continues along this road it will continue to have democracy, freedom and human rights, in the same spirit in which the US pursued independence over 200 years ago. The US should be pleased to see this happening and stand together with the Taiwanese, not throw us to the lions and put an end to the freedom we now enjoy.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Paul Cooper
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