Policymaking is always an art of finding a balance between continuity and change: Governments want to maintain what is perceived as good or beneficial for their respective countries and at the same time make progress in the right direction. Circumstances change and force people, organizations and governments to adapt to the new circumstances.
The US itself is built on the precept of change. The nation was born out of the belief that Americans have the vision, ingenuity and perseverance to make the world a better place. Thus, our policies have always supported change … in the right direction. That is why it is peculiar that in one specific area we cling to the “status quo” — our policy toward Taiwan.
In the 1970s, the US ceased recognizing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and established relations with Beijing, but it did not recognize Chinese claims to Taiwan. It said Taiwan’s future needed to be determined peacefully and with the express consent of its people.
This move was designed to buy time. Subsequently the Taiwanese were able to transform their political system into a vibrant democracy, and in the 1990s this new democracy started to aspire to membership in the international family of nations as an equal member. However, the US response was to continue to relegate Taiwan to an unofficial, second-class status.
This international isolation was aggravated in 1998, when then US president Bill Clinton pronounced the “three noes,” one of which was that the US “does not support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations that require statehood.”
While the US had not actively worked in support of Taiwan’s membership in international organizations between 1979 and 1998, it had also not opposed it, and it had certainly not attached the condition “that require statehood.” This new phrase certainly offered an interpretation that a policy change had occurred, since it seemed to alter the US position that Taiwan was “a state with which we do not have diplomatic ties” to “we do not consider Taiwan a state.” The Clinton administration maintained that it had not changed its policy. But it weakened Taiwan’s international position.
Clinton also limited the US position on Taiwan’s future status when he stated that the US “does not support Taiwan independence.” The Chinese spun this to mean that the US “opposed” independence. In fact, the US had been agnostic on the issue, neither supporting nor opposing either independence or unification as long as the process was peaceful and democratic. So Clinton also reduced Taiwan’s options on this point.
All of this is important in view of the references in the US-China Joint Statement issued at the end of US President Barack Obama’s visit to China, in which the two countries “reiterated that the fundamental principle of respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the core of the three US-China joint communiques.” The US said this paragraph only referred to Tibet and East Turkestan, but China’s foreign ministry emphatically stated it also referred to Taiwan.
These episodes illustrate how little attention and import the US has given to Taiwan. By clinging to an imaginary “status quo” we have allowed China to whittle away Taiwan’s room for maneuver and consequently our own ability to maneuver. What has been gained by limiting options?
By pretending to maintain stability and the status quo, we have undermined the possibilities for change in the right direction: a furtherance of democratic principles. The US should be pointing to Taiwan as a model for peaceful transition to a system that is designed to endure peaceful transitions of power.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS