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
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in