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.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS