On Aug. 23, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) announced the party’s new national security strategy as part of her campaign for January’s presidential election. The document takes a refreshing look at the situation, establishes core principles as a point of departure and lays out a set of clear policy positions.
The strength of the policy paper is that it positions Taiwan as a member of the international community that “has the duty to actively participate in and contribute to international cooperative efforts, and do its best to fulfill its responsibilities as a member of the international community.”
In the paper, the DPP advocates a “balanced global strategy” in which Taiwan reinforces its strategic partnership with the US and strengthens cooperation with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Relations with China are dealt with extensively: Tsai advocates “multi-layered and multifaceted exchanges” between Taiwan and China, which would result in a framework for “cross-strait peace and interaction,” thereby establishing a “stable and constructive bilateral relationship.”
This approach presents a much better prospect for Taiwan’s future than the worn-out approach of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, which bases itself on the archaic “Republic of China” Constitution that originated in 1947 Nanjing and has very little to do with present-day Taiwan. It would be akin to applying Britain’s unwritten constitution to the US because at one point in time the English king ruled over the 13 American colonies.
The other misnomer in the policies of the Ma administration is the so-called “1992 consensus,” a vague and confused definition of “one China” whereby the two sides are supposed to have different interpretations.
Tsai said that it would be much better if the Taiwanese arrived at a “Taiwan consensus” based on a common Taiwanese identity and shared values such as an adherence to the universal principles of justice and democracy, balanced external relations and human rights, because this would provide a more solid base for future dialogue with China.
The Taiwanese have a choice: Are they going to find their Taiwanese roots as a seafaring nation and become an integral part of the global community of nations, or will they continue to follow the anachronistic Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) line and thereby ensure their future is dependent on the goodwill of authoritarian China? The January elections will reveal all.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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