The government is asking the public not to“overinterpret” its negligent handling of the disaster relief effort in southern Taiwan and its initial rejection of foreign aid before accepting US assistance.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), however, insists that US assistance is a sign of restored trust between Taiwan and the US.
The unspoken implication, of course, is that if former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his administration had still been in power, the US would have stood by and watched Taiwanese die.
Such farfetched conclusions only prove that it is part of Ma’s character to take credit for other people’s achievements while shirking responsibility for his mistakes. “They” don’t want the rest of us to interpret the significance of the US’ disaster relief assistance, because that could put the spotlight on government negligence and incompetence, separate Taiwan’s friends from its enemies and make China lose face.
The US’ actions and a number of phrases used by its officials, such as “humanitarian assistance” and assisting “the Taiwanese people,” as well as a statement that there is “no need to inform China,” highlight the significance of this assistance.
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) stipulates that the US shall “resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan,” making it a matter of legal implementation. The US does not recognize Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China, so it does not have to inform China of its actions.
The US’ disaster aid gives a clear response to the question of who Taiwan’s friends and enemies really are.
The US makes no territorial claims on Taiwan, and the TRA provides unilateral protection for Taiwan’s security and well-being, while China wishes to annex Taiwan, with its “Anti-Secession” Law threatening the use of force.
The government’s negligence included waiting until Aug. 13 before it asked for US assistance.
The next day, US aircraft landed in Taiwan in a display of the US’ organizational capabilities and highlighting the Taiwanese government’s incompetence and inability to understand that US helicopters could not fly from Guam or Japan to Taiwan.
By making this preposterous suggestion, Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) showed he has no grasp of how the US carries out disaster relief in the region.
The US’ display was also a show of strength as far as China’s military was concerned. If the US could mobilize so quickly for disaster relief efforts, then of course it could do the same in the event of conflict.
Ma relies heavily on the legacy of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), but doesn’t understand that it was the US’ military capabilities that saved Chiang’s skin in August 1958.
The Nationalist army on Kinmen could not compete with China’s firepower, so the US sent in eight-inch guns, which arrived on Sept. 19, finally giving the army the firepower to respond to the bombardment.
The significance of the US’ disaster aid does not lie in mutual trust.
Instead, it proves the folly of the government’s policy to move closer to China and distance itself from the US.
The TRA allows the US to assist Taiwan, and the US is the friend that will help to protect Taiwanese freedom and democracy.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS