Taiwan may not have official diplomatic ties with the US, but this shouldn't mean that Taiwan's president, or his successor next year, should be treated with any less respect by US officials.
A quick assessment of American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt's comments during his visit to Taipei this week demonstrates that the US government still has much to learn about showing respect to the president of a democracy.
Burghardt regurgitated Washington's opposition to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan" and expressed the US administration's concerns over the consequences of a successful referendum for cross-strait stability during his meeting with President Chen Shui-bian (
After telling local reporters on Monday that "all it [the referendum] does is cause trouble," Burghardt -- in an overtly condescending manner -- told Chen that what the latter had said and done with the referendum could "harm the new president's ability to get off on the right foot." He added that the referendum would not only make things difficult for the next president but make things even more complicated if it passes.
Just because Taiwan lacks official diplomatic ties with the US and is not recognized as a state by the UN does not give Burghardt license to lecture Chen on what he should and should not do, nor draw red lines for the next president on how he should proceed on cross-strait policy.
Even if the referendum does pass in January it would only be a reflection of the people's will to see Taiwan join the UN under the name "Taiwan." One therefore wonders why it should be so offensive for a president to follow the will of the people who elected him.
Burghardt said the result of the referendum would not change Washington's "one China" policy. That's fine, for Taiwan is an independent state with its own territory and currency and a government that is answerable only to Taiwanese.
The referendum is not an attempt to influence US policy.
The US government has often complained about Chen springing surprises on Washington by making sudden announcements and that the DPP administration has failed to understand US policy. Granted, Chen has a tendency to make extemporary remarks that warrant more care.
But beyond that, the lack of official diplomatic links -- and the calisthenics that this situation has forced Taiwanese diplomats to perform just to talk to their US counterparts -- is the principal reason why Taipei hasn't been able to "get" US policy. Give us direct access and all that ambiguity, all those misunderstandings, will vanish.
Taiwan cherishes and takes very seriously its relationship with the US.
But by the same token, the US should respect Taiwan and let its elected president do his job -- represent Taiwanese and work for their collective good.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS