IN THE MIDDLE of World War II, British prime minister Winston Churchill said: "You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing -- after they have exhausted all other options."
He was expressing his exasperation with US zigzagging and idiosyncrasies in the fight against Nazi Germany and Japan.
We are similarly exasperated with recent statements by US officials opposing a referendum to enter the UN under the name Taiwan.
On Dec. 6, Deputy Assistant US Secretary of State Thomas Christensen reiterated his opposition to the referendum, while a few days later, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Ray Burghardt made similar statements during a visit to Taipei.
These statements are undermining democracy in Taiwan and are playing into China's hands. As an organization of US citizens of Taiwanese descent we find this unacceptable.
The statements undermine democracy because they go against the fundamental principle of self-determination: People have the right to express their views on major issues that affect their future.
Taiwan has a very special history because after World War II it was occupied by the losing side of the Chinese Civil War. But after Taiwan's remarkable transition to democracy, it is now a free nation that wants to be a full and equal member in the international family of nations.
The US opposition to the referendum also goes against the grain of the basic US principles of democracy and human rights, which are enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are universal values that the people of Taiwan cherish as much as Americans.
The statements by Christensen and Burghardt are also antithetical to keeping a level playing field in Taiwan.
By singling out the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum and not saying anything about a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) referendum -- which also supports joining the UN -- Christensen and Burghardt are taking sides in an internal Taiwanese debate and are influencing the election campaign. No doubt their statements will be played up by the pan-blue press.
In opposing the referendum, the US officials are regrettably doing the bidding of the authoritarian leaders of China. Beijing long ago learned that the shortest way to Taipei is through Washington and is now manipulating the US into trying to "control" Taiwan.
In spite of US denials, it is letting itself be used to "co-manage" Taiwan.
Of course, China does not like the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-sponsored referendum, but this vote would not disturb peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. It should be clear to our friends in the State Department and the White House that China's military threats against Taiwan and its relentless campaign to isolate Taiwan internationally are the real sources of tension and instability.
The purpose of the DPP's referendum is threefold. It would let the international community know that Taiwanese have no intention of letting themselves be subdued by the authoritarian regime in Beijing, and that the Taiwanese want their country to be a full and equal member in the international community. It would also counter China's relentless pressure to isolate Taiwan.
Christensen and Burghardt also made statements to the effect that they want to stick to the faulty and outdated "one China" policy.
We would like to quote one of Burghardt's own statements: "One of the wonderful things about democracy is that when new leaders come in, the new leaders present a new opportunity."
We certainly hope that when a new leader comes into power in Washington, he or she will see fit to ditch the anachronistic "one China" policy and replace it with a pragmatic policy based on the reality that Taiwan is a free and democratic nation in its own right.
In the meantime, we of course hope that the administration of US President George W. Bush will be sensible and rational on the issue of the DPP's referendum, and not overreact. For the time being, it should remain quiet on the issue and let democracy in Taiwan take its course.
After everything is said and done, the US should follow Churchill's advice: Do the right thing and support Taiwan's membership in international organizations.
Chen Wen-yen is executive director of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese-American organization based in Washington.
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