US National Security adviser Susan Rice on Monday said the US’ fundamental interest is in peaceful and stable relations between Taiwan and China, and that Washington opposes any unilateral attempt to change the “status quo.”
Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has also pledged her cross-strait policy would be to maintain the “status quo,” while President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has claimed that cross-strait relations are at their best in more than 60 years.
What exactly is the cross-strait “status quo?” Who decided what is it? Who defines the term?
In view of recent incidents, China has been unilaterally changing the “status quo” and asserting its position as the dominant state in defining the so-called “cross-strait status quo.”
In terms of military might, China is changing the “status quo” through its buildup of ballistic missiles. The number of missiles China has aimed at the nation has increased to more than 1,600 over the years.
A defense paper released by the Japanese government suggested China’s military buildup has led to a shift in the Taiwan-China military balance in Beijing’s favor.
A Pentagon report released in May said that China’s military modernization program is dominated by preparations for a potential conflict with Taiwan.
Economically, China continues to suck away Taiwanese capital, resulting in a marginalized Taiwan.
Statistics from the Mainland Affairs Council show that Taiwanese exports to China in 1980 were 1.4 percent. That has increased to 45 percent last year.
This economic dependence on China to buy exports no doubt makes the nation more vulnerable to China and dampens its international economic competitiveness.
China has thrown away the principle of mutual respect in its dealings with Taiwan, evidenced by a new policy issuing an electronic “Taiwan compatriot travel document” to Taiwanese visitors, without discussions with the Executive Yuan.
The move, following China’s previous unilateral designation of the controversial M503 flight path and Beijing’s proclamation that cross-strait exchanges must be carried out on the basis of the so-called “1992 consensus” and that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China,” are all aimed at fostering a political illusion among members of the international community that the relationship between Beijing and Taipei is “central versus local,” in which China has the final say.
However, regardless of how brazenly Beijing alters the “status quo,” under the Ma government the nation remains relatively quiet with the government failing to assert Taiwan’s dignity.
Not a single word of condemnation nor protest was uttered by the Ma administration, just quiet rhetoric expressing regret.
While China has been changing the “status quo” all along, the Ma government continues to tout the fictitious “1992 consensus” as the basis for maintaining peaceful relations between Taiwan and China.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS