It is a bit peculiar to see that suddenly so many US government officials are visiting Taiwan these days. During the past few weeks, there was US Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman. The week before that it was USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, while in September US Assistant Secretary of Commerce Suresh Kumar visited Taipei. And earlier in the year, US Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing Sandra Henriquez swung by.
One observer stated that there have been more US high-level visits during the past three months than in the previous three years. Is US President Barack Obama’s administration suddenly becoming responsive to repeated suggestions from the US Congress to pay more attention to Taiwan and to have a better dialogue with the nation?
Perhaps so, but some critical minds have also voiced a concern that the Obama administration is implicitly taking sides in Taiwan’s presidential election next month and by sending in one senior official after another, is showing undue preference for the present government in Taipei. This would indeed be a contravention of the stated policy of the US.
At a US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in October, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell said: “We, as Americans, are excited about this [election] process because it highlights one of the key values that we share with the people on Taiwan. We do not believe any one party or leader on Taiwan has a monopoly on effective management of the relationship and we do not take sides in the elections. We will work closely with whatever leadership emerges from Taiwan’s free and fair elections to build on our enduring commitment to Taiwan’s people, its prosperity and peace.”
There are other points where the US needs to be very careful with its timing. One of those is its Visa Waiver Program, of which the US Department of State recently nominated Taiwan as a candidate country.
While visa-waiver privilege for Taiwan is widely supported, it would have been elegant for the State Department to wait with any announcement on its decision until after the elections, lest it give the appearance of taking sides.
However, US neutrality does not mean simply a hands-off approach: It does mean that Washington needs to watch carefully and ensure that Taiwanese enjoy free and fair elections. On that front there are two major challenges: both from within Taiwan and from across the Taiwan Strait.
In Taiwan, all parties need to work hard to make sure there is a level playing field. Democracy can only thrive if Taiwanese can have a civilized debate on the urgent issues before them, such as jobs, income distribution, energy security, housing, the environment and cross-strait relations. Mudslinging or using the judiciary should have no place in such a campaign.
However, it is also important that China starts to respect the voice and the choices of Taiwanese. Democracy is here to stay and that means changes in government will take place, now or in the future. The sooner Beijing gets accustomed to that idea, the better.
Nat Bellocchi was chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 to 1995. 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