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.
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