Let's begin with The Nelson Report, a daily newsletter on global affairs. On Feb. 2, editor Chris Nelson wrote that US President George W. Bush was again "furious" at President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The alleged criticism from Bush in the report was harsh, and was passed on to the reader as if Nelson had heard it in person. The report was considered sensational by many, yet it was taken as serious news and received a lot of attention in Taiwan. The purpose of this was to use the report to oppress Chen.
How much credibility does the report have? Heritage Foundation Research Fellow John Tkacik believes that its credibility is low, because Dennis Wilder, the US National Security Council's acting director for Asia, said in a White House meeting on the Taiwan issue on Feb. 4 that the US should treat Taiwan fairly. The pro-China official's remarks pointed out two things: first, Bush was not furious at Chen.
More importantly, Washington admitted that it has failed to handle cross-strait issues fairly. Indeed, due to the Middle East crisis, the US urgently needs Russia's and China's cooperation. So it oppresses Taiwan in order to achieve this goal. To be honest, this is not only unfair, but also undermines US interests in the long run.
US officials and think tanks have repeatedly emphasized the need to protect Taiwan in order to uphold its democracy. But is the US defending Taiwan from communist China just to uphold democracy? Not necessarily. In the era of martial law and the White Terror under the authoritarian rule of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), the US still made great efforts to protect Taiwan. Thus, democracy is only one of the US' concerns. It also has a greater strategic consideration: safeguarding its strategic deployment in the Pacific Ocean. Taiwan is a friendly ally that the US cannot afford to lose. But although the US has vowed to defend its national interests in this region, its strategic insights are questionable.
As Washington attacked Chen's proposal to abolish the National Unification Council and the unification guidelines, it did not criticize former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) or People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) after their visits to China. From their unity with the communists to KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) claim of unification as the party's eventual goal, they show that the pan-blue camp is pro-China, anti-US and anti-Japan. In other words, the camp is echoing Beijing. It is evident that unification under the Chinese communists' banner is Ma's eventual goal.
Taiwan will move toward unification if Ma is elected president in 2008. By that time, both Taiwan's democracy and the US advantage in the Pacific Ocean will be irreversibly harmed, while the US-Japan Security Treaty will exist in name only. The US has repeatedly told the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to maintain the "status quo." But it ignores the pan-blue camp and Beijing's preparations for future unification. Thus, as the US restrains Chen's localization push, it is in fact helping China, which is both anti-US and anti-Japan. If Ma wins the 2008 presidential election, the two sides will then be unified. Taiwan will perish and the US will be forced to withdraw from the strait.
After the unification of Taiwan and China, it will be too late for US regrets. Washington will bury Taiwan's democracy, the democratic system built by the 23 million people here, and its control of Asia. It will also lose its laurels as the global protector of democracy. Does the US want to support the democratic or the authoritarian side? The answer depends on how wise it is.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS