Several days ago the US said in a statement that it does not support steps that would appear to change Taiwan's status unilaterally, such as changing names of entities that are based within Taiwan. The statement was public and must have pleased China, while it embarrassed the legitimate leaders of Taiwan on a subject most Taiwanese support and which has been dealt with before with no problem.
For years Taiwan had a provincial government that had considerable power, especially covering government financing (which included most government owned companies). This was essentially done away with in the mid-1990s. Like the present issue, it was based on democratic necessity. US experts at that time fretted that China would find that action unacceptable. This proved not to be the case.
In this present case, the effort by Taiwan to change names is not only an effort by political leaders for political purposes. It is also a legitimate need for broader purposes.
The history of the US-Taiwan Business Council, located in Washington, seems to have been forgotten. It was originally called the US?ROC Economic Council, with its counterpart ROC?US Economic Council in Taipei. Eventually the council's name was changed to its present name because many US businesses couldn't find it -- they thought the ROC (Republic of China) was China.
Since the very beginning of democratization in Taiwan, the US has put off for many years the need to make useful changes in conducting this special relationship. After much agony, it was tried in 1994. Not much came out of it. There was a greater explanation of what would not be done -- to satisfy China -- than what changes would need to be made to what has become a relationship between two democracies.
Now, with the rise of China and India, the changes occurring in Russia and the US' focus on the Middle East, the impact on the continuing cross-strait issue is becoming even more difficult to manage. Following the studies and institutions that helped shape worldwide economic rules, more worldwide studies on developing political changes are beginning to emerge. Inevitably this will have a considerable impact on cross-strait issues.
These are long-term efforts, but in the meantime policies are made on short-term issues. China, for example, has been trying to convince other countries, especially the US, that this is the year Taiwan could very likely move toward independence via changes to its Constitution. They know well that the Taiwanese laws being considered are domestic in nature and that in any event, it is almost impossible to make changes to the Constitution in such a short time.
Some friends of China seem to believe that pressing others to prevent Taiwan's possible action is a sign that Beijing is improving its international behavior. China's concerns are more likely meant to reduce any attention on not only the Taiwan issue, but to domestic concerns during next year's Olympics. They had little to say regarding domestic name changes until after the US had publicly made its statement on the issue.
The US focus on cross-strait issues is primarily on lowering tensions. As important as that is, and aside from the relationship with China, the US ought to concern itself with not only the domestic politics of Taiwan, but in gaining consensus within the many elements of the government in Washington.
Taiwan's two major political parties have very different objectives that impact on the direction the nation is likely to take. The question for the US is: What should it do once the elections are over?
The Democratic Progressive Party will continue strengthening "Taiwanese identity" at home, continue efforts to increase the ntaion's international status through democratization and economic relationships and to move as much as possible toward independence.
The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) objective for now is to regain power at any cost. If it is successful, it has made clear that it seeks eventual unification with China. Its present priorities, such as greater economic and cultural relations with China, are part of that objective.
Instead of chasing after name changes of little consequence, the US had better try to determine what future relationship with Taiwan would best serve its interest.
At this stage, one party states it would establish a much broader relationship with China. Little is said about security issues, but its actions have shown that Taiwan would likely not be much involved in that issue.
The other party would continue to press for its political objectives. As a consequence it may well be troublesome, but its interest will likely be in continuing close relations with its present friends, while continuing to seek dialogue with Beijing.
Instead of pressing Taiwan not to change names, it would have been better if Washington had pressed China into establishing a dialogue with the elected leaders of Taiwan. Unfortunately, the US also did not seem to have the kind of dialogue with Taiwan that is needed.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
US president-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named US Representative Mike Waltz, a vocal supporter of arms sales to Taiwan who has called China an “existential threat,” as his national security advisor, and on Thursday named US Senator Marco Rubio, founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China — a global, cross-party alliance to address the challenges that China poses to the rules-based order — as his secretary of state. Trump’s appointments, including US Representative Elise Stefanik as US ambassador to the UN, who has been a strong supporter of Taiwan in the US Congress, and Robert Lighthizer as US trade
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
RSS