If President Chen Shui-bian's (
While China's interference on Taiwan's diplomatic efforts was to be expected, there could be a host of reasons behind the brush-off by Washington. Among them the most plausible is that it's another indication of the State Department's lingering displeasure towards Chen's recent effort at backtracking on his "four noes and one not" pledge, specifically the debacle regarding the National Unification Council and its guidelines.
But the Bush administration's reaction is at least puzzling and might even be contradicting its own policies. To be specific, Chen's abolition of the council and the guidelines amounts to nothing more than rectifying a past mistake, keeping an undemocratic dinosaur alive and removing another hurdle to Taiwan's full democracy.
If Bush's often stated foreign policy goal of "promoting democracy globally" is to be believed, then Chen should be commended.
Instead, contrasting to the recent formal White House ceremony bestowed on the visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao (
There has been speculation that the apparent snub was the Bush administration's attempt at shaming Taiwan into building up military readiness. There exists no sign it is working. Those pan-blue legislators, who are responsible for blocking the special arms purchase bill, ridiculed Chen's travail.
There has also been speculation that Washington intended to use the incident to further isolate Chen.
In the past year, hardly a month has gone by without the Bush administration urging Beijing to talk to Chen. But by talking to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma ying-jeou (
Although Bush couldn't possibly be joining Beijing's "united front" against Taiwan, it is possible that he is inadvertently bolstering Beijing's isolation of the country.
Outwardly the more pressing reason given for rejecting Chen's request is that the US needs China to join the US and the EU in blocking Iran's nuclear ambitions. If that is the case, it is equally ignoble -- currying favor with China at the expense of Taiwan.
It is also misguided. The diplomatic game should have commenced with Taipei's request to Washington for some choice transit locations so as to give the US an opportunity to extract maximum concessions from China as a price for Washington's turning down Taipei's requests at the end. This would, in turn, be premised on Washington promising diplomatic help to Taipei in such institutions as the WHO and the UN.
Taiwan's politicians often take refuge in Taiwan's need for military protection from the US to explain away diplomatic slights from the US. They might have overlooked the fact that Taiwan's strategic importance justifies US military help.
Any diplomatic horse-trading should be based on diplomatic merits alone. Chen's trip this time demonstrated to Washington that his administration has finally understood that nuance. In the long run, this should result in a healthier relationship between Taiwan and the US.
If the State Department still believes in its ability to push Chen around at will, the US runs the risk of alienating the Taiwanese people.
That's because Taiwan's public is warming to Chen, specifically because his government is being bullied by both the KMT-Chinese Communist Party alliance and the Bush administration. This phenomenon is all the more pronounced because the president's original deep-green support-base, who deserted Chen last year on account of his vacillation over the China visits by former KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), is coming back to the fold.
Even some of the light-greens -- who have recently grown disenchanted with Chen on account of alleged improprieties -- are also starting to come around.
If the trend continues, Chen could use this trip, and the experience of the abolition of the council and guidelines, as the key to unlock the shackles of Taiwan's continuing democratization and to construct the minimum red line for cross-strait relations.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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