During an interview with ABC News on Thursday last week, US President Joe Biden responded to the suggestion that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan could undermine Taiwan’s trust in the US. Biden said that Taiwan’s situation is not at all comparable with Afghanistan, and he listed Washington’s relations with Taiwan alongside those with Japan, South Korea and NATO, which shows how much importance the US attaches to its Taiwan Strait strategy.
Few observers noticed something else that Biden said in the interview, namely that the US’ agreements with Taiwan and South Korea are not based on a “civil war,” but on helping a “unity government” to resist forces that want to harm them.
Biden also said that the US’ commitment under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to respond in case of an armed attack against any of its NATO allies also applies to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
This part of Biden’s interview shows that there has been some change in the traditional US view of Taiwan’s status being an extension of the civil war between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The US’ agreements to defend Taiwan and South Korea are not a matter of taking sides in divided countries, but of protecting united and friendly allies from invasion by external enemies.
The discourse that relations across the Taiwan Strait are a state of “civil war” is the excuse that the CCP uses to rationalize its harassment of and aggression toward Taiwan, and to obstruct the international community from intervening. However, a precondition for a civil war is that the two sides see one another as belonging to the same community, even while vying for control of it.
During the more than 70 years since the Republic of China government retreated to Taiwan, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have undergone radical changes in their sense of belonging to one community. By now, each has developed mutually independent and somewhat conflicting identities, making the old discourse of the Taiwan Strait question being a “civil war” rather than “aggression” increasingly unreasonable.
At a time when countries around the world are reconsidering their relations with China and Taiwan, Taiwan should reconsider the civil war mentality that exists within it. This mentality is tied up with Taiwan’s particular historical experiences and institutions. It came about quite naturally, but has become disconnected from reality.
As the US and other allies of Taiwan are coming to view Beijing’s expansionist actions as aggression, and when they are actively developing their relations with us, Taiwan cannot afford to be doubtful and hesitant, or even misjudge the international situation because of this civil war mentality. It could sow distrust of the US and spread fear, and would likely have a negative impact on Taiwan’s trustful relations with its allies. Only communist China could benefit from that.
In the midst of new international realities, Taiwan needs to discard the old civil war mentality. Taiwan must clearly and resolutely tell the international community that China’s verbal and military threats are not the continuation of a civil war, as the CCP claims, but naked international aggression.
Only then can Taiwan convince more countries to realize the importance of the Taiwan Strait question and jointly resist China’s expansionism, while consolidating Taiwan’s relations of trust with its allies around the world.
Hsieh Wen-che works at a think tank in Taiwan.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS