President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) announcement to "cease" the National Unification Council and its guidelines highlighted the US' passiveness in promoting cross-strait dialogue. Since China passed its "Anti-Secession" Law and both former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) China visits, Beijing's Taiwan policy has been to isolate and marginalize Chen's government. In response, the US has repeatedly expresses its hope that China can talk to Taiwan's elected leader. Verbal statements of this sort will hardly bring China back to the negotiating table.
Looked at from Chen's perspective, if Beijing refuses to speak to him directly, any compromise or concession will only make his power base more fragile. No rational decision-maker would act in this way. As a result, the deadlock between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is expected to remain unchanged, and tension may even increase.
Clearly, Washington is the only one that can push Beijing to consider the restart of talks with Taipei. However, although Washington regards itself to be a facilitator to cross-strait talks, if it only advises Beijing orally, the effectiveness has been proven limited. From now on, Washington will need to take proactive moves to push Beijing into a dialogue with Taipei.
Chen's announcement has also underlined the necessity for the US to review its balancing role on the cross-strait issue. Washington has always defined the "status quo" in the Strait as "no independence, no war" -- based on the principle that no one shall change the "status quo" unilaterally. But its concern over the "independence" part of the equation has far outweighed its concern for "no war."
While the US and China both show concern over the perceived "gradual" or "creeping" shift towards de jure Taiwan independence, Washington has ignored the process of Beijing's "gradual annexation" or seeking of de jure unification. In the face of the growing military imbalance in the Strait, China's attempts to contain Taiwan's diplomatic space and marginalize Taiwan in regional economic cooperation, the US has failed to declare its position or counter China's threat.
US tolerance will only allow China to go further, pushing Taiwan toward being united by China or even annexed. If Taiwan does not fight back, then the "status quo" is likely to drift toward a situation unfavorable to Taiwan.
Therefore, since Washington has only had a minimal response to Beijing's "no war" pronouncements, Taipei deserves the right to draw a red line between itself and Beijing. The premise for Chen's declaration of the "four noes and one without" -- that the Chinese regime has no intention to use military force against Taiwan -- is not just a matter of principle. It must be taken as an operational concept that restricts and deters China's hostile moves against Taiwan.
The cessation of the unification council and guidelines is Taiwan's declaration to the international society: We will never tolerate China's irrational threats. In short, in order to secure peace and safety in the Strait, in addition to righting the military balance, we need to pursue political deterrence.
Taiwan must also strive for the right to define and judge the "status quo," while making its bottom line clear and give itself an unassailable position.
The NUC incident was finally ended by "one cessation, with each side making its own interpretation." Through this action, Taiwan has won the right to interpret the "status quo" and to interpret what constitutes a change to the "status quo." This may well be a turning point.
Lo Chih-cheng is the executive director of the Institute for National Policy Research.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS