Much is being made by the pan-blue press in Taiwan about a statement US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick made during a hearing of the US House International Relations Committee, in which he said: "Independence means war."
I attended the hearing, and find the focus on this particular statement rather puzzling: Zoellick did indeed make it, but it was a brief, emotional outburst during a heated debate with Congresswoman and former ambassador Diane Watson, a Democrat from California, regarding President Chen Shui-bian's (
Zoellick was obviously exhausted from the long journey from Nigeria, where he had lengthy negotiations deep into the night about the Darfur situation. The members of Congress rightly applauded him for the breakthrough achieved in Africa.
It would be much more interesting to note that at least four of the committee members expressed their indignation at the fact that the administration didn't grant Chen an overnight stopover. They argued that such a gesture doesn't have anything to do with the US' lack of diplomatic ties with Taiwan, but rather with the respect due to a democratically-elected president.
Such respect was especially necessary after the White House rolled out the red carpet for a distinctly undemocratic leader of China.
What message does this send about the importance the US attaches to democracy? The supporters of Taiwan independence have always emphasized that they want peaceful coexistence with China.
China is threatening war, not Taiwan. To the Taiwanese who lived through the 228 Incident of 1947 in which tens of thousands were massacred by Chinese troops, and the subsequent 40 years of dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), any "unification" with China means yet another round of subjugation by foreign dictators.
The US and other Western nations applauded when Taiwan made its transition to democracy. The Taiwanese who worked hard to bring this transition about are expecting the next step to be full and equal acceptance by the international community. The Republic of China (ROC )government lost its international recognition in the 1970s because it still claimed to be government of all of China -- in fact, that is still in the decrepit ROC Constitution which the US wants Taiwan not to change.
By clinging to its anachronistic "one China" policy, and by telling Taiwan not to change the "status quo," the US is preventing the nation from ridding itself of the anachronistic remnants of its repressive past.
At the same, it gives totalitarian China a say in the decision about Taiwan's future that should be made by the Taiwanese people themselves. Imagine if someone had suggested in 1776 that the future of the American colonies should be "acceptable to people on both sides of the Atlantic."
Is it too much to ask for the international community (including the US) to help bring about a normalization of relations with Taiwan, instead of letting themselves be used by the folks in Beijing who are threatening war?
Let's focus on the positive words spoken at the hearing, such as the following by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican from Florida.
"And many members of our committee have already asked what steps the administration has taken to normalize diplomatic relations with Taiwan, to further trade relations with our eighth-largest trading partner through a free trade agreement, and to convince China to arrive at peaceful coexistence with Taiwan as friendly neighbors.
"And I'd like to reiterate those sentiments and encourage our administration to help the Taiwanese people in their plight to further the ideals of freedom and democracy, ideals that are common ideals between our two peoples. And because of this mutual relationship, our struggle remains to work together for a more democratic and safe world. And the US has always emphasized that the dispute between Taiwan and China needs to be resolved peacefully.
"However, as we've seen, China is modernizing its military with the aim of threatening or attacking Taiwan and preventing the US from coming to Taiwan's assistance. So as we fight for the principles of democracy to be recognized throughout the world, we must stand by Taiwan as it seeks to strengthen its young democratic structure, to expand its economy in order to become fully recognized by its Asian neighbors and to be fully integrated by the international community.
"And it was an honor for my city, Miami, to host President Chen in his stop a few months ago, and it was very encouraging to see so many members of Congress participating ... [in] Miami to congratulate President Chen for what he has been doing. And it's a shame that we were not able to do so again."
Ros-Lehtinen has the courage and the vision that Zoellick lacked.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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