Threat of force has its place
While I think it’s admirable, indeed imperative, that people of all political persuasions in Taiwan work toward a common consensus with regard to Taiwan-China relations, strict neutrality is not the way forward (“Neutrality is Taiwan’s best option,” Oct. 6, page 8).
Far from perfect is the situation that Taiwan finds itself in when we talk about the “status quo” in cross-strait relations. The status quo, unfortunately, is the best that Taiwan has at this juncture. It’s the security dynamic between China, Taiwan and the US that has fostered Taiwan’s de facto independence over the years. This fluid relationship is also, for the moment, the best way to maintain it. Changing Taiwan’s Constitution to renounce the use of force would fundamentally change this dynamic and could lead to further regional instability.
China has in excess of 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. This statement isn’t meant to stir pro-independence fervor, but rather to state facts as they stand. Without a concrete agreement in which China also renounces the use of force against its smaller neighbor, a constitutional change would be reckless regardless of Taiwan’s progress toward self-determination.
In effect, Taiwan would be inviting China to press its strategic advantage while at the same time bringing into question — at least from a US perspective — whether Taiwan is serious in defending its sovereignty.
Add to all this a global reconfiguration that is quietly but inexorably playing itself out as we speak. The US is still the world’s largest economy, with all the political and military clout that accompanies this. But Washington is paying the price for a largely unregulated financial system, bad debt and military over-reach.
At the same time, China and Russia are finding themselves increasingly able to assert pressure internationally. Does anyone really believe that, as things stand, the US is in a good position to guarantee Taiwan’s security? Recent events in Georgia, where the US seemed absolutely powerless to intervene, were instructive.
The weakening of the US already has the potential to upset the status quo in the region. A unilateral renouncing of force without a concomitant and binding response from China invites further destabilization. Whatever the way forward is for Taiwan, the answer does not lie in blindly putting faith in China’s goodwill and its opaque plans for Taiwan.
KARL HABY
Taipei
Enhancing influence
In an article in the Weekly Standard on Thursday, defense analyst Thomas Skypek reported that the US government was finally waking up to the threat posed by China’s “full court press to establish influence and connections in Africa and Latin America.” Here, yet again, is another unintended consequence of the US State Department’s failed policy of pursuing “good relations” with China at any cost. Will the State Department ever learn from its mistakes?
If the US had been more supportive of Taiwan in the eight years before President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, it is almost certain that fewer allies of Taiwan in Latin America and Africa would have recognized China. That would mean a balance of influence in these parts of the world.
One thing is certain: Any ally of Taiwan would not be in the pocket of China.
But what would result if the US began encouraging Latin American or African countries to recognize Taiwan?
First, China would cut ties, therefore losing influence with those countries.
Second, the countries would cease falling prey to China’s colonial exploitation and receive help from Taiwan that would see genuine improvements in quality of life — medical, agricultural or industrial. Such help would not have the gargantuan chains attached that China’s has.
Third, China’s corrupting and election-subverting authoritarian influences on these nations would be minimized.
Fourth, Taiwan’s democracy would become their model for the path to the future. Fifth, the US would not have to be directly involved in any of these allies’ affairs.
Of course, the US itself should recognize Taiwan. Then it could have a peace-loving, democracy-spreading partner, and this would be for the good of the world community.
JOEL LINTON
Taipei
The wagging tail
President Ma Ying-jeou was called “great President Ma” in sign language at a gathering to promote the 2009 Deaflympics in Taipei, and he enjoyed it. A Taipei City Government official called him “very great President Ma” as he opened the main gate of Taipei’s Confucius Temple to welcome the president like an emperor.
Ma has also been described as stupid on several occasions. A female senior high school student quoted a popular new saying — “A bad president is gone, here comes a stupid president” — and wondered what Taiwan would become by the time she graduates from college, according to the Liberty Times.
If Ma is so great, why is his approval rating so low? If Ma is so great, why is his administration so often called mediocre? If Ma is so great, how could he agree to abandon his presidential title — which more than 7 million voters presented to him — when a Chinese official visits Taiwan later this year?
People in Taiwan expect Ma to be as wise as any other Harvard graduate.
Sadly, to date, Ma has acted like a tail wagging for China: He has asked the Taiwanese media not to criticize China; he has enjoyed the fruits of democracy but worships dictatorship instead; he claimed to be Taiwanese during the election campaign but has been destroying Taiwanese identity ever since; he has done more for China’s leaders than for the Taiwanese people; and he even wants to serve for another term!
What will Taiwan become, indeed.
CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS