The first stage of the National Unification Council drama is done. Though it may have seemed to be more like kabuki theater than diplomatic negotiations, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the US apparently have settled the council and unification guidelines problem. The second stage is the reactions of those who oppose his move.
For those of us who watched the birth of both the council and the guidelines, it was clear that the still powerful conservative elements of the then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, who distrusted the president, had demanded it. In turn, he minimized both and worked around it to expand democracy.
After Chen, whose party refused to join the council, took office in 2000 the council was completely ignored.
In fact the US had a part in the council's eventual demise, perhaps unwittingly, but nonetheless it is important. It publicly included in its policy that any change to Taiwan's status must have "the assent of the people of Taiwan." Chen, with that support behind him, has used it not only to eventually dissolve the council and guidelines, but also to at least verbally gain support from the opposition not just for scrapping the council, but for any change in Taiwan's status.
In the midst of the unique system both the US and Taiwan seem to have in dealing with each other on cross-strait matters, there has been unconfirmed leaks, supposedly from the US National Security Council (NSC), that the US is now considering a better "balance" between its policies regarding China and Taiwan. This may be part of an overall shift in the focus of US foreign policy -- as evidenced by the recent realignment of diplomatic personnel from Europe to Asia, and the stationing of more US military assets in the Pacific.
If all of this is true, it is still not clear if this is meant to be a fundamental change in US policy toward Taiwan, or a quid pro quo for once again asking the present government to hold off on a fundamental change needed and supported by the voters of Taiwan (the last one being the issue of using referendum).
At the same time there is also a report written by Michael Green, a recent member of the NSC who is much involved in cross-strait policy matters. The report sees Taiwan's democracy as the means for its survival, not the claim to de jure sovereignty. It's a thought which should be pursued despite the obstacles that have prevented it during the past 15 years.
Determining the policies needed to implement these two items -- first a more balanced relationship between Taiwan and China, and second, real support for Taiwan's democracy -- go together. They have the same hurdles -- the relationship with China and the differences within the US regarding Beijing's policies, and the lack of consensus within Taiwan.
In balancing the relationship between China and Taiwan one problem among many others is the concern about the possible reaction by Beijing to anything the US does for Taipei. The concern on many occasions has been publicly stated by the US before any such concern has been raised by China. This is not just a current problem, it has occurred frequently over the years.
This is not wise as US experts do not always accurately analyze China's red lines. Replacing former premier Hau Pei-tsun (
When China had complaints about the direct election of a president in Taiwan, or in recent years about some sovereignty issues, they made it known publicly, without US help. If nothing else, it is seen as a Chinese concern, not necessarily a US one.
If that policy is established, different rules and the political will to make the necessary changes will be needed. The present rules applied to the US-Taiwan relationship were unilaterally established by the US and have always caused costly inefficiency both administratively and in policy matters.
Taiwan was strongly supported in the US as it began to democratize. As in the case of many newly democratized countries, it is great when it happens but frustrating when it doesn't always move in the desired direction.
In 1990, Taiwan began moving in the direction of a populist democracy. People's preferences began to matter. The country's name, UN participation, the Constitution, the direct election of representatives at all levels of government, the impossible continuation of low level politics, to name a few, worried Washington.
By the mid-1990s it was clear that Taiwan's democracy was becoming the major focus (more than the economy) in the bilateral relationship. The US Congress helped strengthen the democratic relationship, although more inter-parliamentary exchanges would help. The US military has made considerable progress in strengthening its part of the relationship. The political relationship between senior levels, however, has lagged behind.
This is inevitable, as those with political responsibility must deal with China. In trying to strengthen Taiwan's efforts to take part in the international community, for instance, the US' own efforts are more focused on encouraging other countries to join it in taking part. That has not been very fruitful and is unlikely to be so.
High profile statements such as the one made by President George W. Bush in Kyoto are very helpful. Direct programs with Taiwan, especially with non-governmental organizations, are likely to strengthen and hopefully expand Taiwan's capability to influence democracy in China and other countries.
These two proposals -- a better balance in cross-strait matters, and strengthening the capability of Taiwan to gain support through its democratic system -- are important. If there is a fundamental shift in the US' Asia policy that includes promoting democracy, there will be a need to change the self-imposed rules that now isolate Taiwan.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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