"Sometimes tempers flare [in Taiwan] and in such a way that it could trigger unintentional consequences," were the words yesterday of US Senator John Warner, a Republican from Virginia.
The senator was delivering a thinly veiled warning to Taiwan during a committee meeting on the Asia-Pacific region. While questioning the commander of the US Pacific Command, Admiral Timothy Keating, the senator made it clear that he did not want to see "provocative" acts by Taiwan.
Warner's comments come amid a flurry of such utterances by US officials, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who on April 12 warned both China and Taiwan to refrain from provocations ahead of next year's Olympics in Beijing.
It is de rigueur for US officials to talk about "maintaining the status quo" and to give impromptu lectures on the nuances of the "one China" policy and the Taiwan Relations Act.
But Warner, with his comments to Keating, took direct aim at Taiwan.
"I hope Taiwan recognizes that the United States of America is heavily engaged militarily worldwide. And we do not need another problem in that region [the Asia-Pacific]," Warner said.
"So I hope they don't try to play the Taiwan Relations card to their advantage," he said.
Unfortunately, Warner's insistence on singling out Taiwan highlights two of the most fundamental problems that this nation faces in its dealings with US policymakers.
The first is a basic misunderstanding by many US policymakers and academics of what motivates Taiwanese politicians and drives local politics.
If Taiwanese politicians are saying and doing things that Washington or Beijing find irritating, it is the height of arrogance to assume that they are doing it simply because their "tempers flare."
The theatrics in the Legislative Yuan, the perpetual protests and TV talk shows may lend credence to the suspicion that Taiwanese politicians are immature troublemakers (often they are), but they must be interpreted within the context of local politics.
It was not rash anger that drove President Chen Shui-bian (
Meanwhile, the same goes for parts of the pan-blue camp (especially the People First Party) when they oppose procuring US weapons systems. These politicians aren't motivated by ire; they're motivated by a desire to keep their jobs by retaining supporters.
The second problem that Warner's comments highlight is a perception among some people that Taiwan's de facto independence -- and not China's questionable claim to Taiwan as part of its territory -- is the source of friction in the Taiwan Strait.
This little fallacy needs to be put down as quickly as possible.
Taiwan is not the problem. The Taiwanese people are not the problem. No one in Taiwan is seriously calling for the military to invade China (at least, not anymore). No one in Taiwan is threatening to wipe US cities from the map. No one in Taiwan is even saying that they would be willing to watch millions of Chinese die, simply for the sake of hollow pride.
Now take a look at China. There are some encouraging voices in the wilderness, people who call for calm and restraint. But there are just as many officials in China who thunder for blood, death and destruction. There are plenty of politicians in China who are willing to build their careers and their legacy on a mountain of skulls.
Senator Warner, at the end of the day, it isn't Taiwan that threatens war; it is China.
So why warn Taiwan about being "provocative"?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS