The leaders of the US and Taiwan appear to be caught in a negative spiral at which Beijing can only smile.
Recent blunt exchanges aimed at defending or opposing referendums advocating that Taiwan seek membership in the UN under the name "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" are the latest manifestation of a troubling long-term trend. Notions of sovereignty, independence, leadership and respect fill the airwaves. The Taiwanese people and their leaders face myriad pressures from China -- economic, military, diplomatic and even in their domestic politics.
On top of that is pressure from Washington, which is urging patience -- and in many cases -- inaction, as a sizable segment of Taiwan's population demands that its elected leaders push back against the tide.
In Washington there is a widespread sense of annoyance with Taiwan, which is perceived to be pushing issues known to create tension with Beijing at a time when the US is preoccupied elsewhere and working with Beijing to manage denuclearization of North Korea.
In Taiwan there is a sense of abandonment -- that the Bush doctrine does not apply to China and Taiwan, that the US is looking for ways to qualify its commitment to Taiwan's defense and that Washington is colluding with Beijing in ways that hold back the aspirations of the Taiwanese people.
There is also a perception that Washington does not trust the people of Taiwan or respect the democratic processes at work there -- which, like most democracies, at times are noisy and fail to deliver results.
The diagnosis of these problems is not complicated, but a prescription to get out of this negative spiral is quite difficult.
The circumstances that led the Bush administration to adopt what is seen as an increasingly negative approach to Taiwan show no signs of changing for the remainder of US President George W. Bush's term in office.
Similarly, given the widespread support across political parties in Taiwan for a vote expressing strong popular sentiment against international isolation, there is no doubt that plans for a referendum will proceed no matter what Washington says or does.
The seeming lack of creativity and flexibility on both sides to find common ground or alternative approaches is disappointing and has long-term implications.
Taiwan cannot afford to be passive and wait for the US to finish what is often called a "long war" or "generational challenge" against the forces of radicalism in the Muslim world.
China is not being passive as the war on terror is waged and one has to imagine that the imbalance of power in the Taiwan Strait will be overwhelming in less than a generation -- sooner if Taiwan is passive.
The US has not effectively engaged the forces driving decisions in Taiwan's democracy, in part because it does not feel it should have to.
Instead the US has opted to seek commitments from the "leader of Taiwan" that he is to then impose on his electorate by "exercising leadership."
While this is not the impression the US seeks to convey, it is not far from the mark in describing the attitude driving the US' approach. Needless to say, this does not go over well in Taipei, but more importantly it does not produce the result the US says it seeks.
Taiwanese leaders share responsibility for the negative spiral in relations with the US. Chinese Nationlist Party (KMT) leaders polarized Taiwanese politics by rejecting election outcomes, shaking hands with the Chinese Communist Party but not President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and stalling high-profile defense procurements for years.
Democratic Progressive Party leaders polarize international perceptions of Taiwan by articulating initiatives in ways easily construed by opponents as anti-China or motivated only by near-term domestic considerations.
Lost in all of this is an appreciation for a long-term struggle in Taiwan that the US and even China should easily identify with -- undoing the mistakes of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the means he used to impose the will of a minority.
After all, China itself saw his leadership as sufficiently flawed to justify a violent revolution and A new constitution.
The people of Taiwan have taken a different path in their struggle.
The independence movement in Taiwan is difficult to assess because it has many voices and motivations.
What seems to give it broadest support, however, is not anti-China sentiment. It is the deliberate struggle over time to develop democratic institutions that remove the means used by Chiang to dominate the people of Taiwan, and replacing them with means to prevent any person or party (foreign or domestic) from imposing its will on the people without their consent.
Rolling back Chiang's influence is not de-Sinification. It is liberation, just as it was seen in China.
This drive of course is aimed at China, however, as it is the dominant outside force currently seeking to impose its authority over Taiwan. But it is not limited to China. It is aimed at limiting the ability of any future leader of Taiwan to enter agreements that determine Taiwan's future without public consent.
And as the US is finding out, it can be aimed at others (including allies) who seek to impose their interests on the Taiwanese people.
The current tussle over the proposed UN referendum is caught in these deep undercurrents.
Even if the Taiwanese people cannot achieve UN membership through the process, a large segment of the electorate sees it as important for the US and the international community to respect their desire to use a democratic process to assert who speaks for their interests. They want to underscore that they do this themselves -- not Beijing, not the UN, not the UN secretary-general and not even allies.
On top of the sensitivity attached to the use of referendums as a democratic tool to push back against international isolation, the issue of membership in the UN is linked to undoing one of Chiang's strategic blunders.
He insisted on withdrawing from the UN even though not required to do so by Resolution 2758, ironically defying hard work by the US aimed at keeping Taiwan in the UN while ceding the Security Council seat to Beijing.
For those who struggled for decades for basic civil rights and democratic institutions in Taiwan there is profound insult and injury in the current circumstance that few in the international community can appreciate. How can it be that three decades after the death of a dictator that the people of Taiwan are still held down by the choices he made without their consent?
And how can it be that the US government -- which worked against his decision to withdraw -- now appears an ally in the cause to make Chiang's mistake permanent?
Stephen Yates is president of DC Asia Advisory, a Washington-based consulting firm, and is former deputy assistant to US Vice President Dick Cheney for national security affairs.
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