On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) director Richard Bush published an article in the China Times on April 9 saying that the US’ commitment to Taiwan’s security is based on the premise of a shared strategic view held between the two countries. Bush also said Taiwan’s democratization and China’s rise are the two key factors interfering with the maintenance of a common Taiwan-US view of strategy.
His first comment shows how laws that are treated like policies can change over time. His second comment shows that he views self-awareness and self-determination brought by Taiwan’s democracy as key factors that interfere with the US and Taiwan sharing common strategic viewpoints.
We have to ask whether the TRA depends on a consistent US-Taiwan strategy and whether the US would alter its policies to suit its interests, which would mean that its commitment as stated in the TRA would no longer exist unless Taiwan also altered its policies.
Under former US presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the US repeatedly redefined its China strategy. At the time of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the US viewed China as a butcher. Later, the US viewed it as a strategic partner, then a competitor and even a responsible stakeholder. Will the US’ commitment to Taiwan change because of its China policies? This is the risk when laws are treated as policies.
Although the former AIT director said that there were two key factors interfering with the two countries’ strategic views, he seems to believe that Taiwan’s democracy is mostly to blame because it has given rise to national recognition within Taiwan and concepts of a secure future. This view of Taiwan’s democratization as a problem, and not a means to a solution, is common among the “China experts” in Washington.
The former AIT director said that as China’s national strength grows, the US and China share more interests and that he was worried Taiwan’s democracy would challenge the basic interests of the People’s Republic of China and obstruct Sino-US cooperation. These “China experts” saw former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) insistence on national recognition as destructive to the “status quo,” and view Taiwan’s democratization as running counter to the “one China” principle.
Richard Bush — who is close to US President Barack Obama’s administration — is revealing Washington’s eagerness to get rid of Taipei to make room for Beijing. In the Martial Law era, he associated and sympathized with opposition parties in Taiwan. But with statements like his, it is frightening to imagine the attitude of other “China experts.”
From the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), the agreement signed by him and his Taiwanese counterpart Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), we can see how President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has oppressed freedom and democracy in the name of promoting cross-strait relations. Bush’s article also explains why AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt endorses Ma’s government on behalf of Washington even as Taiwan’s freedom and democracy are regressing.
Will Taiwan’s democracy collapse and the country be annexed by China because of misconduct by the Ma administration and encouragement and tolerance from the Obama administration?
There are many examples of democracy being quashed throughout history. Taiwanese need to maintain a critical view of these “China experts” and make their own decisions.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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