Recently the US State Department spoke out in opposition to the referendum on Taiwan's application to the UN under the name "Taiwan."
I am aware of only a few examples in the modern era of a country telling another how to manage its internal democratic processes.
Such dictation has most often come from the former Soviet Union aimed at the states in its sphere of political and military influence in Eastern Europe.
Certainly giving instructions to a state whose population has a higher literacy rate than mine does the image of my country no good. Why, I ask, could not the State Department simply say: "That is an internal matter to be determined by the people of Taiwan according to their democratic processes"?
Given Taiwan's rapid development and democratic status, and the range of states that are UN members but fall far short of Taiwan in size, wealth or freedom, Taiwan's entry into the world body would seem quite appropriate.
The State Department could be more productive by helping to open a way forward, to correct the errors made in the 1970s when Taiwan was rhetorically abolished under the mistaken assumption that ending US recognition would force that country to join China. That did not happen and seems ever more unlikely to happen.
So the US, China and the rest of the world should be looking to the future, and asking how, realistically, to accommodate this resilient state in the world community, rather than denying patent realities while seeking to resuscitate policies of denial that have clearly failed.
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of
International Relations
University of Pennsylvania
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