At his year-end press conference on Friday last week, US President Barack Obama touched on a wide range of issues, from Russian hacking during the US presidential election, the civil war in Syria and impending fall of Aleppo, to the highly improved employment situation in the US.
For the people in Taiwan, his most memorable remarks came during the question-and-answer session, when Mark Landler of the New York Times asked him if he agreed that the US’ “one China” policy could use a fresh set of eyes and what was the big deal with having a short telephone call with the president of Taiwan.
In his answer, Obama actually started off alright: He acknowledged that “all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes,” that “America benefits from some new perspectives” and that “it is not just the prerogative, but the obligation of a new president to examine ... and see what makes sense and what doesn’t.”
However, he then dug himself into the old “one China” rabbit hole by elaborating how “there has been a long-standing agreement, essentially, between China, the United States and, to some degree, the Taiwanese, which is to not change the status quo.”
Obama then added: “Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they are able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy that they won’t charge forward and declare independence.”
In making this statement, Obama overlooks a pretty fundamental point: He fails to take into account that Taiwanese were not part of the “agreement.” It was made over their heads between Beijing and Washington, imposing on them a second-class status and international isolation.
Fortunately, between 1979 and now, Taiwanese forged a momentous transition to democracy, which does mean that they are now ready and able to take their place as a full and equal member in the international community.
The new “status quo” is that Taiwan functions with full autonomy and is for all intents and purposes a free, democratic and independent nation. The problem is of course that the US’ “one China” policy has not really kept up with new reality on the ground.
So, instead of clinging to vague concepts and fuzzy understandings dating back to the 1970s — arrived at over the heads of Taiwanese — why does the US (and western Europe) not start thinking of a way to normalize relations with Taiwan and thereby move toward more sustainable peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait?
It is essential for the US and western Europe to start seeing Taiwan in its own light and in its own right: a free and open democracy, a vibrant and innovative economy, and a strategically important partner in the East Asia region.
Mr Obama: This is really change we can believe in.
The problem is also that China is now challenging the “new status quo” in the Taiwan Strait by trying to isolate Taiwan even further and by threatening military moves if Taiwan does not fall into line.
For China it is important to move toward a new mindset and stop looking at Taiwan as a piece of unfinished business dating from the Chinese Civil War.
Beijing should take advantage of this window of opportunity and start working toward a positive and constructive relationship across the Taiwan Strait in which the two nations would work toward the normalization of relations and eventually recognize each other as friendly neighbors.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat and former editor of Taiwan Communique who now teaches History of Taiwan at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virgina.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS