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
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