Friends of Taiwan are understandably concerned by the concerted push, under mainland strongman Xi Jinping (習近平), to further throttle Taipei’s dwindling circle of “diplomatic allies.” The perhaps excessive attention given by the Government of Taiwan to China’s aggressive policy suggests that this remains a soft underbelly of insecurity.
Beijing has already pilfered five of the island’s formal diplomatic partners since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took office in 2016, as part of an effort to reduce Taiwan’s self-confidence. As I sit down to write this piece, the news is circulating of the recent breakthrough in Vatican-Beijing relations. Pope Francis seems ready to relent on the thorny issue of who can designate bishops in China. For decades, Rome insisted that only the Pope could appoint such prelates. But now Francis has apparently acquiesced to the existence of bishops appointed by the state-run Patriotic Catholic Church.
This move has been seen by many as opening the door to greater Vatican involvement in Catholicism on the mainland, although it is less clear whether this means Beijing alone can appoint future bishops. Another outstanding question as of late September is whether the Vatican will formally break relations with Taiwan and shift its small diplomatic mission — currently headed by a charge, rather than an Ambassador — from Taipei to Beijing.
While I understand the longstanding focus on this issue, I come at this from a slightly different perspective. Yes, it is certainly reassuring to the 23.5 million citizens of Taiwan to point to the island’s international status, and one easy method to measure this factor is by counting the number of countries that maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taipei.
But let us consider two factors: first, who are the remaining countries that maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and how important are they on the scale of international politics? Second, how have other nations around the world managed their relations with Taiwan?
I doubt many western readers could find some of Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, like Palau, on a map. It is certainly true that China is engaged in what is clearly a high-level campaign to poach Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners. This is seen as a sign of displeasure with President Tsai and her administration’s policies, following the more accommodating approach of her predecessor. Yet many Taiwan watchers in the west pay slight attention to this matter.
At the same time, US interest in Taiwan is only growing stronger. Congressional legislation, as well as statements by the current administration, all underscore the high-level support for Taiwan in Washington today. President Trump may not have realized what he was doing — a common problem with this indifferent student of foreign affairs — when he accepted President Tsai’s congratulatory phone call after his election in late 2016. But his administration has made it clear that a) Taiwan is an important friend and partner and b) the United States remains committed to Taiwan’s existence as a separate political and geographic entity until a mutually agreeable basis for closer ties across the Taiwan Strait is achieved through peaceful means.
This sentiment was very much in evidence at a recent Cross-Strait conference hosted in Washington by the Global Taiwan Institute, where both scholars and government officials reiterated their support for Taiwan and its ability to defend itself against any threats to its autonomous existence. The Trump administration has continued to approve arms sales to the island, and now has Congressional encouragement to dispatch more senior diplomatic and military visitors to Taiwan as needed to sustain our robust ties.
I remember when I was American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director, attending Double Ten ceremonies at the Presidential Palace. After the Ambassadors of Taiwan’s formal partners were presented, the representatives of the United States, Japan, Australia and Singapore were singled out, eliciting a palpable sense of excitement in the assembled audience and press. To me, this reflected the understanding that these unofficial relations were the true core of Taiwan’s international support and sustenance.
Taiwan’s remarkable economic and trade relations with partners throughout Asia and the world are another measure of the island sustaining power in this interconnected twenty-first century planet. Almost forty years after Washington cut its formal ties to Taipei, America remains deeply tied to the island and its people. In terms of trade, investment, student exchanges, tourism or any other measure, our relations are vastly more important now than they were when Jimmy Carter severed the formal relationship.
To understand the enduring nature of America’s commitment to the island, friends in Taiwan need simply to drive by the sparkling new AIT Building in Neihu (內湖) that was formally opened this past June. The autocratic leaders of mainland China, still so fearful of their own people that they remain unwilling to give them a democratic voice in the governance of that sprawling nation, recognize the challenge a free and democratic Taiwan poses to their own legitimacy.
The people of Taiwan should recognize that every day proves to the world there is only one ethnically, linguistically and culturally Chinese polity that allows its own people to exercise their sovereign right to choose their leaders and directly influence the course of the country’s politics. It is not in Hong Kong. It is not in Singapore. And it is certainly not on the mainland.
So I would urge my friends in Taiwan to take the long view. Keep on doing what has made you so successful for so long. Yes, leave an open door to realistic proposals by the mainland to narrow differences and build bridges; but not at the expense of your ability to control your own future. Let us hope a more open China might allow for closer political ties across the ninety miles of the Taiwan Strait. But for now, I am confident the citizens of Taiwan, with their many supporters here in the United States and around the world, will be just fine!
Ambassador Stephen M. Young (ret.) lived in Kaohsiung as a boy over 50 years ago, and served in AIT four times: as a young consular officer (1981-’82), as a language student (1989-’90), as Deputy Director (1998-2001) and as Director (2006-’9). He visits often and writes regularly about Taiwan matters. Young was also US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Consul General to Hong Kong during his 33-year career as a foreign service officer. He has a BA from Wesleyan University and a PhD from the University of Chicago.
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