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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS