Within less than 24 hours, the topic of peace in the Taiwan Strait came up in two speeches made in the Australian parliament late last week. The first speech was made Thursday by US President George W. Bush, the second was made on Friday by Chinese President Hu Jintao (
In his address, Bush characterized the US and Australia as working with other Asian Pacific nations -- including Japan, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore, to "keep peace [in the] the Taiwan Straits."
Interestingly, Bush failed to include China on the list of nations -- suggesting that China is implicitly understood as the "reason" that efforts must be made to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait. While Taiwan is not mentioned either, it is hard to believe anyone honestly believes that Taiwan is a threat, especially when it needs the assistance of countries such as the US to fend off Chinese threats. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that China's refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan is a ticking time bomb that poses the biggest threat to regional peace.
Bush's remarks are consistent with the reiteration of support for Taiwan he expressed to Lee Yuan-tseh (
"By serving our ideals, we also serve our interests," Bush said earlier in the same speech to the Australian parliament when talking about the "liberation" of Iraqis and Afghanis from "tyranny."
The "ideals" to which Bush referred would, of course, be democracy and freedom. "Interests" would be the containment of violence and chaos in the world. Other countries in the region, indeed the world, must be made to realize that the same is true about upholding peace in Taiwan Strait.
The difference, of course, is that Taiwan is a thriving democracy. To allow or condone Chinese military aggression against this country and the stripping away of our precious freedoms would be an affront to the very democratic ideals the US and Australia espouse.
But the murmur over Bush's appearance had barely quieted when Hu made his appearance in the Australian parliament. Far from talking about democratic ideals and liberation, Hu said that Beijing expected Canberra to play a "constructive role in China's peaceful unification."
This puts Australia in the middle of two different views and positions about the Taiwan issue. Under the circumstances, one must ask: Have the US and China both decided to open up participation in the long-standing triangular deadlock between US, China, and Taiwan?
What will other countries do if they are faced with potential Chinese aggression toward Taiwan and are asked to take sides?
Most countries want to dodge the question, since they do not see -- or do not wish to see -- the long-term implications of the rising power of a totalitarian regime such as China. And if they do see, it is not enough to make them want to do something about it.
Under the circumstances, it is sincerely hoped that more governments and countries will have the courage and the conscience shown by the European parliament, which last week again passed a resolution asking China to withdraw the missiles it has aimed at Taiwan.
Sadly, the indifference shown by most countries -- even important trading partners -- gives us little reason to feel hopeful.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS