During his visit to East Asia early last month, US Vice President Joe Biden made a couple of seemingly contradictory remarks.
Referring to China’s announcement of its air defense identification zone, Biden said on Dec. 3: “We, the United States, are deeply concerned by the attempt to unilaterally change the ‘status quo’ in the East China Sea. This action has raised regional tensions and increased the risk of accidents and miscalculation.”
The next day, during his visit to the US embassy in Beijing, he spoke to a group of young Chinese waiting to get visitor visas processed in the embassy’s consular section, saying that he hoped they would learn during their visit that “innovation can only occur where you can breathe free.”
“Children in America are rewarded — not punished — for challenging the ‘status quo.’ The only way you make something totally new is to break the mold of what was old,” he added.
Obviously, Biden was talking about two different “status quos”: the first related to the actual control by Japan over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, [which Taiwan and China also claim and are known in Taiwan as the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列島)]; and the second related to the stifling control by the Chinese Communist Party over its people.
In the same vein, there are different sides of the “status quo” when talking about the position Taiwan finds itself in after so many decades of a “one China” policy by which the international community maintains only unofficial relations with Taiwan.
Taiwanese have enjoyed their democracy and de facto independence for more than two decades, so when they are asked in opinion polls whether they prefer the “status quo,” unification or independence, then it is the “status quo” that often gets the highest preference.
However, when given a real choice for their future, the picture changes quite a bit. This has happened in opinions by TVBS and recently by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
A 2011 TVBS poll asked: “If a choice exists, would you want Taiwan to be an independent nation, or be unified with China?”
The response was 68 percent for independence, 18 percent for unification and 14 percent with no opinion. The DPP poll outcome was, if anything, a bit conservative: 60.2 percent for independence, 23.4 percent for unification and 8.7 percent for the “status quo.”
Both polls show that the majority opt for independence, while only a small number want unification with China. So, when given a real choice, Taiwanese want their country to become a full and equal member of the international society instead of being relegated to the status of an international pariah. The international community therefore has a duty to help move Taiwan out of international isolation.
In the 1970s, the international community adopted a fuzzy “one China” policy, relegating Taiwan to second-class diplomatic status. This was perhaps understandable, as Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) perpetuated the untenable myth that his “Republic of China” represented all of China.
Since then, Taiwan has gone through a momentous transition to democracy, with the government elected in a relatively democratic fashion. So, it is reasonable to ask that US and European policies be changed now a new and democratic Taiwan has formed.
From the polls, it is clear that the “status quo” of diplomatic isolation needs to be challenged.
Perhaps it is time for the West to break the mold of the old and outdated “one China” policy, and to develop ideas and strategies on how to normalize relations with Taiwan. Normalization worked for relations with the People’s Republic of China in the 1960s, so it poses a good model for the 21st century.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS