For quite some time, Taiwan and the US have not seen eye to eye over the proposed referendum on Taiwan's application for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." The US has blamed Taiwan for being aggressive and not giving due consideration to the US' needs in the Iraq war and the war on terror. Taiwan, on the other hand, complains that it is precisely the US' preoccupation with those two wars that has caused it to neglect the survival crisis facing Taiwan. Trust between the two parties is at a low, and the US feels Taiwan's president has violated his "four noes" promise, while Taiwan feels the US keeps changing its expectations.
Some commentators feel the current problems in this relationship are the result of differing views of the "status quo." That, however, has always been the case, so the problem isn't that there is a difference in the way the two sides interpret the "status quo," but rather how they respond to and deal with the differences between their interpretations. Can the US and Taiwan communicate or will the situation deteriorate and lead to a crisis.
A review of the developments in relations between the US and Japan and the US and South Korea holds many lessons. When the Cold War ended and the US-Japanese alliance lost its main enemy, the Soviet Union, mutual trust between the two was at a low because of economic competition. However, the two countries did not let factors such as the views or actions of a single leader obscure their view of the larger context.
They instead resolved their problems by recognizing the structural changes in the situation. This approach led to a redefinition of the US-Japanese alliance in 1996. The alliance and its role in the post-Cold War era were redefined, thus laying a foundation for its rapid future development.
When the US and South Korea, also alliance partners, were faced with similar problems, the main focus was placed on individual leaders and there was not enough structural analysis of the situation. The US felt that President Roh Moo-hyun's government was anti-US while the South Koreans felt that President George W. Bush's administration was dangerous because of its neoconservatism.
As a result, the North Korean nuclear issue has developed into a strategic division between the US and South Korea. This has complicated negotiations with North Korea.
People analyzing the state of US-Taiwan relations are liable to misjudge the situation.
The pan-blue camp, pro-China media and some allegedly pan-green commentators believe that President Chen Shui-bian (
The implication is that a change in leadership will smooth out the wrinkles in our relationship with the US, and we have even seen the presidential candidates jump on the bandwagon by promising their visions for Taiwan would differ from Chen's leadership style.
Instead, let's look at recent history. If we analyze Taiwan-US relations since Taiwan's democratization, we see that the US has toward the end of each four-year presidential term in Taiwan, accused the incumbent of being a troublemaker.
This was true of former Chinese Nationalist Party president Lee Teng-hui (
This is also why it is more fruitful to try to understand the structural changes in the relationship between the US, China and Taiwan on the one hand and the situation in the Asia-Pacific region on the other than it is to discuss Chen's personal contributions to or influence on the US-Taiwan relationship.
Taiwan has developed into a democratic state and a major world economy, China is rapidly becoming a great power although the US is still the lone superpower, but occupied with its "war on terrorism." The relationship between these three states has changed dramatically since the Cold War, meaning that Taiwan-US relations as we once knew them are unable to deal with the complex and transformed situation.
We must understand this to understand why Chen and former senior US officials Michael Green and Randy Schriver all responded to the disagreement over the UN referendum proposal by suggesting a review of the structure of the existing relationship between Taiwan and the US and recommended that talks between Taiwan and the US occur at a higher level.
Lai I-chung is head of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of International Affairs.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS