The Russian attack against Georgia on Aug. 6 — two days before the Beijing Olympics began — has led to a number of commentaries drawing parallels between Georgia’s relation with Russia and Taiwan’s with China.
In one article, “Events in Georgia bode ill for Taiwan,” published in The Weekly Standard on Aug. 25, Dan Blumenthal and Chris Griffin strongly criticize the administration of US President George W. Bush for its tepid response to Russia’s invasion. They see in Washington’s complicity in isolating Taiwan a temptation for China’s aggression. They argue for a clear signal that the US will defend Taiwan from attack.
In the article “From Georgia to Taiwan,” published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 16, Richard Bush and Jeff Bader blame the Bush administration for giving “mixed signals” to Georgia, thereby encouraging Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to “provoke” the Russian bear. On the other hand, they laud Bush’s “more tempered approach” to Taiwan, which led to “a more nuanced American policy” that bolstered Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) election, and “hopeful initiatives to stabilize cross-Strait relations in ways that hold out the prospect for improving Taiwan’s economy, reducing the military threat from China, preserving Taiwan’s democratic system of governance.”
The two articles represent opposite sides of the US political spectrum: Blumenthal and Griffin are associated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, while Bush and Bader are at the liberal Brookings Institution and are associated with the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
On the policy toward Georgia, we would actually disagree with both analyses: In our view, the Bush administration did a reasonably good job in its expressions of support for the newly democratic country. There may have been some tepid responses right before and after the invasion, but overall, the US did the right thing: Express clear support for Georgia, condemn the Russian invasion and get the NATO partners to form a united front in opposition to the Russian moves.
On the issue of US policy toward Taiwan, we would fully agree with Blumenthal and Griffin and strongly disagree with Bush and Bader: At least since the end of 2003, the policies of the Bush administration toward the democratic island have been abysmal. In 2001, Bush started out quite alright by declaring he would do “whatever it takes” to help defend Taiwan from aggressive moves by China.
However, in December 2003 he somehow got weak knees and started to oppose Taiwan’s evolution toward a full democracy. He opposed a referendum held in conjunction with the 2004 presidential election that expressed opposition to China’s missile buildup. In an infamous TV opportunity, Bush, standing next to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶), didn’t say a word about China’s missiles aimed at Taiwan, but lambasted President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) for wanting to let the people of Taiwan express themselves on this issue. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?
The Bush administration compounded its mistakes last year and this year when it launched a veritable campaign against Taiwan’s UN referendum — which was held concurrent with the presidential election in March — even with people like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressing “opposition” to the referendum.
What went wrong? For one thing, the US was preoccupied by Iraq and Afghanistan and let itself believe that it needed to accommodate China to resolve a number of other fires burning in the world: North Korea, Tibet, Burma, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
China was able to capitalize on the US’ desire to put out these fires, but at the same time kept them burning in order to gain more concessions from the US.
The Bush administration thus let itself be used by China to undermine democracy in Taiwan and put the future of the country in question. What is needed from a new US administration — whether it is led by Obama or his Republican rival John McCain — is a clear signal by the US that it will help defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese threat or attack. This is in the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act and we should stick to it.
We also need to emphasize the right of Taiwan to be a full and equal member in the international community. Any talk about only support for participation in organizations “that do not require statehood” undermines Taiwan’s position and is not befitting the US — a nation that portrays itself as the leader of the democratic world.
Both Taiwan and Georgia are examples of countries that have achieved democracy against great odds. If the US wants to expand democracy in the world, it needs to work harder to get these democracies into the mainstream of the international community. At the same time, it needs to convince the large — and less-than-democratic — neighbors that peace and stability can only be achieved if they let their small neighbors next door live and prosper in peace.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS