Douglas Paal was director of the Taipei office of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) from 2002 until early this year. On July 13, he spoke at the Brookings Institution in Washington to an audience of policymakers concerned with the Taiwan issue.
In reflecting on his time here, Paal made a number of observations which demonstrated his incisive knowledge of Taiwan, although -- perhaps due to time constraints -- he failed to raise the core issue in each instance.
For example, Paal touched on how Mainlanders discriminated against ethnic Taiwanese (85 percent of the 23 million population), tried to destroy local language and culture and persecuted and executed dissidents. He did not mention the 228 Incident, in which at least 20,000 Taiwanese were massacred by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), or the murder of dissident Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) mother and twin daughters after the Kaohsiung Incident.
Paal praised the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leadership for not stirring up the past through "rancorous legal proceedings or truth commissions" after gaining power in 2000.
The problem is that ethnic cleavage and bitterness persist to this day because there has not been admission of guilt, let alone an apology, from the perpetrators.
After World War II, the German people reflected on and properly atoned for the atrocities committed by the Nazis. The KMT's position is: Let's forget the past and concentrate on the future.
Paal rightly criticized Taiwan's media for its lack of investigative journalism. He could have pointed out that Taiwan's print and electronic media are dominated by pro-unification journalists who bombard the public every day with pro-China, anti-US and anti-Taiwan propaganda. Many media outlets are now under Hong Kong ownership and the government appears incapable of stopping the infiltration of Taiwan's media by Beijing's agents.
Paal described Taiwan as a ballot box democracy still lacking in "an invisible element that helps a democracy reduce its disadvantages and enhance its advantages."
He was too polite to say more.
The main problem with Taiwan's nascent democracy is that the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) lack the sense of fair play which is essential to the institutionalization of democracy.
The pan-blue opposition has never accepted its defeat in the 2004 presidential election. It continues to undermine and paralyze the DPP administration through its majority in the Legislative Yuan. It has tried to enact laws to usurp the powers of the executive.
After failing to impeach President Chen Shui-bian (
The leaders of the KMT and PFP promote unification with China. Through their pilgrimages to Beijing, they have in essence pledged their allegiance to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Taiwan's democracy is in grave danger because the disloyal opposition willingly works with Beijing to subvert Taiwan's democracy and sovereignty from within.
Some of Paal's comments sounded facetious. He said: "Today, the PRC and US articulate their [common] interests in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait region."
Of course, the PRC would prefer to annex Taiwan peacefully, through internal subversion, and its soft "united front" strategy is proving quite effective with the capitulation of the KMT and the PFP to China.
Nevertheless, the modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) continues unabated. The goal is to overwhelm Taiwan's resistance before the US can react. Beyond that the PLA is developing the capacity to attack US forces deployed in East Asia and to launch a nuclear attack on the US homeland. It is prudent to assume that after attaining hegemony over Asia, the PRC will eventually challenge the US' global preeminence.
If avoiding war in the Taiwan Strait is the only goal of US policy, then Taiwan's freedom could be sacrificed. The impact of Taiwan's annexation, however, would be far-reaching. It sits astride the sea lanes and air space vital to Japan and South Korea.
Once Taiwan is controlled by China, Japan will face the unpalatable prospect of developing nuclear weapons.
A nuclear-armed Japan may lack the geographical size necessary to absorb a first strike from China and survive to retaliate. On the other hand, the US nuclear umbrella could be unreliable, since any US leader will hesitate to sacrifice New York and Washington to save Tokyo. Of course, one rationale for Japan joining the nuclear club is to make sure that this umbrella will be operative.
On balance, however, it is more likely that the pacifist elements in Japan will prevail and Japan will be reduced to the status of a docile protectorate of China. In this scenario, China would be able to requisition Japan's considerable technological and financial resources to build up its wealth and power. With the combined strength of China, Taiwan and Japan, it would not be unrealistic for China to aspire to become the world superpower in the next 25 years. Either way, the US could well be forced to abandon its forward deployment strategy in Asia and withdraw to Guam and Hawaii. The US' national interests and security would be severely impaired.
Paal praised former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) for his pragmatism. Hsieh was quoted as saying: "Independence is like a distant moon. We can reach for it, but our arms will never get there."
But if independence is ruled out, the only option left is annexation by the PRC, since the status quo is increasingly untenable in the absence of resolute support from the US. From the Taiwanese perspective, is it really "pragmatic" to give up hard-won freedom and accept the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) where there will no longer be any guarantee of life, liberty and property?
And is it really in the US' interests to urge the Taiwanese to forfeit their democracy and sovereignty so as to achieve peace across the Taiwan Strait?
Paal was much too sanguine about Taiwan's current situation and future prospects. For example, in response to a question about what would happen to Sino-Taiwan relations if KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) were to win the 2008 presidential election, Pall quoted remarks Ma made in Tokyo last month that unification was not even a topic until China became democratic.
But that same Ma in March told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington that if he were elected, he would sign a peace accord with China by accepting the "one China" principle that Taiwan is part of China. The 30-year modus vivendi that Ma proposed is a ruse.
Once Taiwan capitulates and the US' Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is abrogated, the PLA will occupy Taiwan and the population will face massive retribution from the CCP. It is worth remembering that since the occupation of Tibet in the early 1950s, the PRC has caused the death of more than 1.25 million Tibetans through massacres and starvation.
Paal saw no use in US flag officers visiting Taiwan. Yet the current practice of allowing only junior officers to visit doesn't work. It is not easy for US colonels and captains to tell Taiwan's generals and admirals what to do to improve the nation's defense.
Dan Blumenthal and Gary Schmitt wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal article: "Only generals and admirals command joint land, sea and air operations, have experience in comprehensive military planning and the bureaucratic authority within the Pentagon to push through new initiatives to help Taiwan."
For the sake of the militaries of the US and Taiwan, the ban against visits by US flag officers needs to be lifted.
Paal also dismissed the US-Japan "two plus two" agreement as lacking in operative content. This refers to a joint statement made in February last year where Japan for the first time stated that a peaceful settlement of the dispute between Taiwan and China was a mutual concern of Japan and the US.
Actually, the US-Japan alliance is quite healthy for many reasons. Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi has built a solid personal relationship with US President George W. Bush. Japan provided logistical support for the US campaign in Afghanistan and it sent several hundred engineering troops to Iraq.
After the 1995-1996 missile crisis in the Taiwan Strait, the US and Japan signed an agreement to strengthen their alliance. Japan's national defense perimeter was expanded to include the area north of the Philippines, thus encompassing the Taiwan Strait.
Japan has been cooperating with US efforts to realign its forces in East Asia. US forces and Japan's Self-Defense Force are increasingly inter-operative.
Japan is vitally interested in preserving Taiwan's status quo as a de facto independent state. It is difficult to understand why Paal is so dismissive of Japan's potential role in helping the US to maintain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
At the Brookings event, Paal was introduced by Ambassador Jeffrey Bader, a former director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council. Bader commended Paal for being pro-American, not pro-Taiwan and not pro-Beijing. He said: "[Doug] did what he had to do for US national interests, not for Taiwan's interests, not for the PRC interests."
It is the obvious duty of US diplomats to exclusively safeguard the US' interests. So why did the ambassador choose to belabor this self-evident fact?
The Bush administration pays insufficient attention to developments in Taiwan or China and the US is preoccupied with problems in the Middle East. It does not have a clear policy on Taiwan's future as part of a comprehensive, long-term strategic vision of the US role in Asia. US policy toward China and Taiwan is adrift, focusing on short-term goals and superficial, mundane affairs. There is little consensus as to what policy will serve US national interests.
Asia will most likely prove to be the most important region for US security in this century because of the rapid rise of authoritarian China and the lack of an effective multilateral security arrangement in this region. It is high time the US paid attention to Asia so government officials do not inadvertently advance the interests of another nation at the expense of the US.
At a news conference on Aug. 11, Bush said: "If we ever give up the desires to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation."
Despite some aberrations, the US is still the shining city on the hill, giving hope to billions of oppressed people worldwide. Once the US loses its ideal of freedom, its influence and ability to sway other nations will decline and the world will fall into an abyss of suffering. Bush was talking about Iraq but his words apply equally well to Taiwan.
Li Thian-hok is a commentator based in Pennsylvania.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
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
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
RSS