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.
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