A neutral country is one that does not take part in war and remains neutral with belligerent countries under international law, and a neutral zone is a place where hostile acts cannot be performed. Current neutral countries include Sweden, Switzerland and Austria. Examples of neutral zones include international canals and straits.
Taiwan was invaded by the Dutch in the 17th century and was then a colony of various nations for more than 300 years. It was not until 1992 that Taiwan democratized and could elect its own president. Different from party-state China, which adopted a planned economic system, Taiwan implemented capitalist economic policies. This is one reason some people still cannot identify with the “unification discourse.”
Although some people support Taiwanese independence, the international community has always been opposed to any unilateral change to the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait. Thus “independence” and “unification” have turned into slogans that are used in political battles. When the Korean War broke out in the 1950s, US president Harry Truman called for Taiwan to remain neutral and this neutrality became the foundation of US policy on Taiwan. This tells us that neutrality is not only feasible, but also serves as an alternative solution to the unresolved dispute over Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Chinese leaders have always made it clear that they do not rule out the use of force in their goal to unify Taiwan with China. In addition to the 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis, China has launched a series of missile tests in the Taiwan Strait. Yet the Taiwan Relations Act (台灣關係法) stipulates that the US is obliged to maintain peace across the Strait. If China were to resort to the use of force, the US and other countries would intervene and a war could even ensue.
If a war did break out because of a misreading of the situation, both China’s southeastern coast and Taiwan would become battlefields facing ruthless devastation. Nevertheless, the right of China to annex Taiwan remains questionable and is also a violation of the UN Charter, which would not support force.
If Taiwan were to become neutral, not only would businesspeople from all over the world start to compete to invest in the nation; the governments of both Taiwan and China would not have to vie for diplomatic space, which would calm the controversy over Taiwan’s independence and arms procurement. The two sides could then devote themselves to national construction to improve living standards. Political, economic and cultural reforms would be especially important, as successful reforms are a short cut to obtaining the support of the public. If both governments could work in this direction, the dispute over Taiwanese independence would be resolved in the process.
Taiwan plays a significant role in the relations between China, the US and Japan, and is located in a crucial area between Singapore, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia and is therefore a major juncture in maintaining peace and stability in the Western Pacific. Moreover, the Taiwan Strait and its surrounding waters are necessary navigation paths to Europe for the aforementioned countries, so Taiwan must remain an area of permanent peace.
With increasingly frequent economic, political and cultural exchanges between the two sides, cross-strait animosity has disappeared, a situation no different from “neutrality.” People from both sides of the Strait should understand this and work together to promote cross-strait stability and world peace.
Hsieh Zui-chi is a former president of Central Police University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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