President Chen Shui-bian's (
Washington's reactions to Chen's speech and the way those objections were phrased offered a few glimpses into the difficulties in diplomatic relations between the US and Taiwan in the last few years.
Perhaps nothing more vividly symbolizes this problem than the State Department's practice of lodging a complaint about statements "representing a change to status quo" without clarifying what the "status quo" itself was or how it could be discernibly shifted if nobody knows where it was positioned in the first place.
Interestingly, at the time of China's enactment of its "Anti-Secession" Law last year, Washington's public reactions did not go beyond "it's unhelpful" diplomatic speak. Nothing close to complaints about "changing the status quo" were heard about the new law.
If the law's mandated use of force under a broad range of conditions did not represent a fundamental shifting of the goalposts in the "status quo," it would be hard to imagine that anything Chen does short of physically crossing the line could constitute any significant impact on the "status quo."
Following on the heels of the enactment of the law, former Chinese Nationalist Party chairman (KMT) Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) visited Beijing to seal the deal to formally link the pan-blue camp with Beijing. Consequently, a KMT-Chinese Communist Party coalition was born and commenced on the path to bring Taiwan into Beijing's fold. A full-court press ensued to lure the Taiwanese people into Beijing's embrace and to undermine Chen's government.
Over the last year or so, the "status quo" must therefore have been pounded totally out of shape. Yet there would be no kind of warning from the US State Department about the "status quo" losing its original visage.
But when Chen finally decided that the aftermath of the law had done enough damage to Taiwan's national security and that it was time to react, especially given KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
At most, what Chen is proposing can be construed as a delayed counter-balance to the law. And, international reality would make it doubtful that Chen can accomplish everything he has set out to do beyond scrapping a couple of dormant relics -- remnants of the old KMT administration and Taiwan's undemocratic past.
It has been suggested that the State Department's role as the antagonist to Taiwan's democratization appears increasingly unbecoming of the world's premier democracy. That observation has not been allayed by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's testimony at a recent US Congressional hearing when she underscored Taiwan's failure to cooperate in its own military modernization but only offered a vague "for American interests" defense for the US insistence on maintaining the "status quo" based on Washington's outdated "one China" policy.
Reading between the lines, the implication seems clear: Taiwan's military modernization project is for the good of both countries, but "maintaining the status quo" is good for the US' short-term interests only.
Rice's testimony should also be noted for offering little to dispel the notion that "changing the status quo" is but a code word for changes that Beijing abhors and that the appropriate metaphor for "maintaining the status quo" is a large arrow-headed sign pointing the Taiwanese people in the direction of unification.
Given that Chen simply would not and could not cross the line, the US government should conclude that the State Department has adequately vented its objections and that whatever Chen is being faulted for does not warrant further straining of US-Taiwan diplomatic relations. Instead, Washington should view Chen's current efforts as part of the cure for Taiwan's waning desire to pull its own weight in the US-Japan-Taiwan defense alliance.
Although Washington might consider it a convenient exercise to openly berate Chen, what has been overlooked is the fact that Taiwan is a completely open society where the State Department's knee-jerk parroting of Beijing's commands is greeted with derision by the Taiwanese public. Escalation of the State Department's current rhetoric therefore offers increasing potential for backfire.
For instance, should US President George W. Bush carry out a public tongue-lashing of Chen in April in the presence of visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Regardless, if there is a price to be paid, it will be short-lived since Chen's actions in no way adversely affect the long-term US-Taiwan strategic partnership. It is even conceivable that Chen's newfound sense of conviction and political courage will begin to repair his image within the Bush administration, specifically in the State Department, and restore at least some semblance of respect and even trust, which would bode well for a Taiwan-US relations as well as prospects for Taiwan's continuing democratization.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS