Costa Rican President Oscar Arias' decision to end his country's 63-year-old official relationship with Taiwan in favor of ties with China was a huge diplomatic setback for Taipei. It's a sign that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government and even the pan-blue opposition need to seriously reexamine Taiwan's foreign policy strategy in the diplomatic battle with Beijing.
Three diplomatic myths need to be debunked. The first is: Do numbers really matter?
During the period of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, Taiwan placed an emphasis on maintaining the greatest possible number of allies. Diplomatic performance was judged according to the number of allies the country could secure. As a result, both sides of the Taiwan Strait engaged in "dollar diplomacy."
This zero-sum approach resulted in Taiwan maintaining between 21 and 31 allies in the 1990s. When the DPP came to power in 2000, the situation remained largely unchanged — although the party did introduce some creative ideas, such as the incorporation of humanitarian assistance and increased support from non-governmental organizations.
The inconvenient truth is, Taiwan needs 20-odd allies to speak for it in international organizations. Taipei also needs its allies to reinforce its claims on independent statehood and to widen its scope for international interaction.
But the way Taiwan maintains its relationships with these allies needs to be transformed. Taiwan should focus on "small state diplomacy," which means reallocating and redistributing its resources and manpower to suit. Taipei must focus on areas in which it has an advantage over Beijing; such as humanitarian assistance, high-tech industry and democracy.
The second myth relates to the need for domestic consensus.
The opposition has no legitimate right to criticize the DPP government over its diplomatic setbacks. After all, the KMT is the source of "number diplomacy" and "dollar diplomacy." Criticizing the DPP's efforts to save the relationship with Costa Rica does nothing to improve the country's image on the world stage. Instead, it gives China an opportunity to further divide Taiwan.
The third myth is that improved relations across the Taiwan Strait would automatically improve Taiwan's ability to participate in international affairs.
KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has called for a return to the so-called "1992 consensus" as a starting point for resuming dialogue. He argues that both sides should stop talking about "mutual recognition" and focus on ending "mutual denial."
Ma's idea is wishful thinking and fails to address the question of the different definitions of "one China" held by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Although there is no such thing as a "1992 consensus," the KMT believes the Republic of China (ROC) is the "one China," while the CCP insists the People's Republic of China (PRC) is the only China and that Taiwan is part of the PRC. Beijing does not accept the existence of the ROC and has prevented it from participating in the international arena whenever possible, even under KMT rule.
Therefore, the assumption that China would give Taiwan more international respect if the cross-Strait relationship improved is manifestly incorrect.
If Ma is elected next March, will Beijing support Taiwan's bid for observer status at the World Health Assembly in May? Would the newly elected president of Taiwan be permitted to transit in Washington en route to Taiwan's diplomatic allies in Central America for his first state visits? And, with his new electoral mandate, would Beijing accept Ma's attendance at the economic leadership summit of the APEC in November?
If, as I suspect, the answers to all of these questions is "no," how long will Ma wait patiently for Beijing to accept the so-called "1992 consensus"?
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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
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
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS