American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal has reportedly warned President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) against holding referendums on major policy issues such as nuclear power or Taiwan's admission to the World Health Organization (WHO) because doing so would cross Beijing's red line on Taiwan. China believes once Taiwan holds a referendum, it will have gone too far in asserting its claim of "independence."
Paal's representations raise a number of questions. Chief among them, why is a US representative to Taipei conveying the PRC's policy toward Taiwan? The unfortunate answer is that US policy on Taiwan has drifted dangerously close to China's by viewing Taiwan's democracy and efforts at self-determination as irresponsible and provocative -- rather than normal and admirable for a country of 23 million that has moved from dictatorship to democracy.
Another question is, how can the US oppose the exercise of democracy in Taiwan? If Taiwan is not supposed to conduct referendums on the theory that it will eventually conduct a referendum on independence, what is to keep China from insisting, and the US from agreeing, that one candidate or another ought not to run, or express views about Taiwan's future?
However, the most important question of all is how will US policy on Taiwan adapt to accommodate the desire of Taiwan's people to preserve their democracy free of Chinese control? Unfortunately, US policy increasingly undermines Taiwan's efforts to gain international legitimacy -- witness Washington's weak support for Taiwan's efforts to enter the WHO and its apparent silence in the face of the WTO's effort to downgrade Taiwan's status within that body.
Not only do these policy decisions run contrary to the intent of the Taiwan Relations Act (1979), but they also encourage China's leaders to view Taiwan's separateness as temporary. As such, they reinforce Beijing's preparations to acquire Taiwan in various ways: by encouraging Taiwan's economic dependence, amassing military might along China's eastern coast and relentlessly working to isolate Taiwan internationally. All of these are designed to make Taiwan feel unification is inevitable.
Beijing, of course, also wants the US to believe Taiwan's unification is inevitable. American officials such as Paal, who judge Taiwan's efforts to gain international standing or determine their own affairs as provocative, in effect do China's bidding. And, in doing so, these officials virtually force the democratic government of Taiwan to seek opportunities to create the political and diplomatic space it needs to reaffirm its legitimate existence internationally -- creating the very crisis in cross-strait relations they are supposedly trying to avoid.
The direction of US policy toward Taiwan is not only questionable morally but is strategically untenable over the long term. It rests on a "one China" policy that is out of date with geo-political realities and the domestic dynamics in both China and Taiwan. The Cold War, which gave rise to the policy in the first place, is over and the Republic of China no longer claims to be the government of all China. Today, Taiwan is a liberal democracy, while China remains a one-party dictatorship that maintains its legitimacy by stoking Chinese nationalist visions of a "Greater China."
Attempting to placate Beijing on the issue of unification with Taiwan does not lead to lessened tensions across the Taiwan Strait. To the contrary, it boosts China's ambitions and leads them to question Washington's willingness to defend Taiwan if necessary -- a point seemingly confirmed by James Moriarty, the senior director of Asian affairs for the US National Security Council.
Moriarty, in a recent press briefing, stated that the US will "help Taiwan to the extent possible defend itself," a substantial weakening of President George W. Bush's pledge in 2001 to do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."
Finally, America's "one China"policy was predicated upon Bei-jing's commitment to a peaceful resolution of differences with Taiwan. China's military modernization, which is aimed at Taiwan and complicating any US intervention, calls that commitment into question.
Allowing Taiwan to be further isolated, while leading Beijing to believe its "one China" policy is effectively our own, cannot help but create misunderstanding and, potentially, a confrontation in which we will be forced to intervene. What is needed is a revised US policy that reassures Taiwan that unification is only possible if freely chosen by the people of Taiwan, makes clear the US will resist militarily any effort by China to force unification and takes active measures to integrate Taiwan into the larger community of democratic states in Asia and the world.
Gary Schmitt is the executive director of Project for New American Century.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS