China has recently raised doubts about US policy on Taiwan-China relations and has been issuing a series of bellicose statements to this end. In a seminar held on Nov. 18, the vice minister of the Taiwan Affairs Office, Wang Zaixi (
Using tougher language, a director of research at China's Academy of Military Sciences, Luo Yuan (
The interesting thing is that former president Lee Teng-hui's (
Prior to Taiwan's presidential election in 2000, then-Chinese premier Zhu Rongji (
Beijing's new bottom line is that Taiwan cannot change the territory stipulated in its Constitution, which China has refused to recognize anyway. Such are Beijing's infantile games.
Does this mean that China considers itself and the Republic of Mongolia to be under the jurisdiction of Taiwan's Constitution? If so, then it's China that has to do some constitutional amending.
Regardless, the US takes the games of infants very seriously and wants to prevent China playing with fire. US State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli has said that using force to resolve cross-strait differences is "unacceptable." He has also said that the US opposes any attempt by either side to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
Replying to a journalist's questions, the US Deputy Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Randall Shriver, repeated a statement by National Security Council Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently. At a press conference on Oct. 15, Rice had said: "It is our very strong belief that nobody should try unilaterally to change the status quo."
So what is the status quo across the Taiwan Strait? Rice said differences across the strait must be resolved peacefully. Shriver also said that the cross-strait status quo is one in which differences of opinion should be dealt with by peaceful means. The role of US policy would be to create an environment for peaceful dialogue.
In short, they emphasized the "differences" first and only then mentioned peaceful solutions to the differences.
The so-called differences exist between China's "one China" principle and Taiwan's "one country on each side" platform. They apparently result from the fact that Taiwan exists as an independent country. If Taiwan is unwillingly and forcibly annexed by China, that would mean that the status quo had been changed.
The status quo does not include changes to the two sides' domestic political situations. For instance, China can amend its Constitution or even create a new one; Taiwan certainly can, too. Taiwan can strengthen democracy through use of referendums; China certainly can, too. It is unlikely the US would voice opposition if China pushed for democratic reform. All these are the domestic affairs of two independent, sovereign states.
In a recent interview with the Voice of America network, American Institute in Taiwan Chairwoman Therese Shaheen said that in regard to cross-strait problems, the US cares about the process, not the outcome. She said the outcome would be decided by the two sides, but the process must be peaceful.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage emphasized later that a peaceful resolution of the conflict is the premise on which the US bases its cross-strait policy.
He added that all those responsible for maintaining peace in the region should not pour oil on the fire. It is clear that "peace" is the keynote of the US' cross-strait policy. The statements of Armitage and Shaheen are consistent with one another.
Taiwan has never intended to launch war to change the status quo. All domestic reform has been conducted peacefully. The current government has never used violent means to punish the opposition. The "five noes" policy President Chen unveiled at his inauguration is based on the premise that China will also make an effort to maintain peaceful relations.
But if Beijing aims at changing the status quo by repeatedly threatening Taiwan with the use of military force, wantonly interfering in Taiwan's domestic politics and opposing Taiwan's push for political reforms to eliminate instability and strengthen democracy, then Taiwan would be forced to adopt counteractive measures -- peacefully, of course.
As a leader of world democracy, the US would support Taiwan's embrace of peace and democracy and stop China from imposing its totalitarian system on Taiwan through war. But in return, Taiwan must strengthen its communications with the US, and at the same time understand the difficulties facing the US. This would help reinforce Taiwan's friendship with the US and promote stability and peace across the Taiwan Strait.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Jackie Lin
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS