So President Chen Shui-bian (
In his letter, Chen said exactly what he should have been saying to the US all along: Taiwan has no intention of making life hard for Washington, but has been forced to take proactive measures to protect its democratic system from Beijing.
"It is unfortunate that the process of shoring up such efforts has been interpreted by China as evidence of moving toward formal independence. At times, I also hear concern from the US and the international community suggesting that developments in Taiwan are aimed at changing the cross-strait status quo, or worse, provoking confrontation with China," the president wrote. "That is certainly not the case."
Given the US's schizophrenia over Taiwan, it is little wonder that Chen was hoping to do something to generate goodwill in Washington. US leaders have a sad history of allowing themselves to be led around by the nose when the Chinese come calling, their pockets stuffed with trade deals.
Chen is clearly hoping to avoid a repetition of that sad scene in late 2003, when "defender of the free world" Bush did all but join hands with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) and sing March of the Volunteers in duet as he scolded Chen over democratic referendums.
Recent signals from the US are encouraging in this regard. It's unlikely that Bush will say anything particularly offensive directed at Taiwan. He is, after all, far more concerned about the US' mushrooming trade deficit with China -- a whopping US$201.6 billion last year, according to the US Census Bureau -- than he is about anything that Chen has done lately.
Hu, on the other hand, can hardly be expected to want to talk about much besides Taiwan. China doesn't exactly have a lot of things it can tout before US leaders and the public. Let's take a quick look at the issues, and the probable Chinese response:
Human rights?
"Don't bring it up."
Democratization?
"We're working on it."
Censorship and freedom of the press?
"Our country is big and has a lot of people. We have to control them."
Devaluing the yuan?
"Yeah, yeah, yeah ... We did that already."
North Korea?
"Let's have another round of six-party talks."
Iran?
"Selling missile technology to Tehran? Us?"
So what is left? Trade and Taiwan. Beijing will want to get some kind of symbolic gesture from Bush. But what could he possibly say, aside from the usual "our policy remains the same" line?
The last few months have marked a real departure from what were becoming regularly difficult relations between Taiwan and the US.
The Presidential Office should now be commended for its preparations for Hu's visit to the US, which included a flurry of activity in the last week between Washington and Taipei to ensure that there was nothing that would give the White House a reason to crack down on Taiwan.
No less importantly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the American Institute in Taiwan are clearly executing their roles properly. It may be simplistic to ascribe this simply to personnel changes, but the lines of communication between the two governments have clearly improved.
What a difference a de facto ambassador makes.
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