US president George W. Bush made a statement last month opposing "any unilateral change to the status quo" when he met Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶). The general interpretation of it was that it was a warning in light of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) decision to hold a defensive referendum on March 20.
For a while, Bush's statement, together with the explicit misgivings of the Japanese government, seemed to have turned the world against Taiwan. As a good friend of the US, Japan and many other democracies, Taiwan is quite serious about these concerns and will take them into consideration. But is Taiwan painting itself into a corner as one report described? Not necessarily.
The recently passed Referendum Law gives the president the exclusive power to conduct a defensive referendum in the face of an external threat. That power is also viewed as a presidential responsibility to safeguard national security.
The purpose of having the defensive referendum in March is to raise international and domestic awareness of the growing danger of China's missile deployment and its determination to use force. The referendum is legitimate, appropriate and not at all
provocative.
A large and steadily growing number of ballistic missiles is the most visible threat against Taiwan. In addition, cruise missiles and multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles are both at the stage of deployment and there is no defense available against them.
The Chinese air force also has a large number of newly acquired Su-27 and Su-30 fighters. The J-10, one of the newest fighters to be developed, has been rolling off the assembly line. Sovremenny-class destroyers, together with Kilo-class and Song-class
submarines, have also been
deployed.
Further, Chinese assault strategies have been modified to include surprise attacks, pre-emptive strikes, asymmetric war and even all-out war.
Taiwan's call for help through a defensive referendum is certainly warranted under such circumstances, but there will be no need for it if China promises peace. The international community, if it is concerned with peace and stability in the region, should urge China to cease with its threats and begin a process of building a long-lasting peace.
But what is this "status quo" that the Chinese government has tried to bully other countries into believing?
The first democratic presidential election in 1996 has been recognized as a milestone in Taiwan's democratization. But more significant than this was that this election was a symbol of sovereignty -- held within specified boundaries by specified citizens for a government exercising exclusive control over a territory. Every four years, Taiwan reaffirms the new status quo -- that it is independent.
Taiwan treasures this reality and it is the reason why there is no longer any need to declare independence. Taiwan's adherence to the status quo, in turn, has become an important foundation for stability in the region.
This status quo was the real reason behind China's missile tests in Taiwan's waters in 1996. It was why the Chinese government released the white paper on the "one China" principle and the Taiwan problem in 2000, which claimed that Taiwan's second presidential election was nothing but a local Chinese election. It is also why Chinese leaders now travel the world telling other countries to oppose "Taiwanese independence." But this is a reality that China cannot change.
Since an independent Taiwan is the status quo, any opposition to it or attempt to force a change in it -- such as "one country, two systems" -- constitutes a change in the status quo. The more China opposes "Taiwanese independence" in the international arena, the more awkward its assertion becomes. China's determination to incorporate Taiwan is how a unilateral change in the status quo is now defined.
This does not mean that differences between Taiwan and China are irreconcilable. There are matters on which the two can work together to reach a compromise. But whatever compromises there may be, peace should be the essential principle in achieving that end.
As the president said when reiterating his commitment to the "five noes" policy in his New Year address, it is time for China to make a hard decision on peace.
The president's New Year wish is that the two sides of the strait can jointly win an international peace prize.
It is a sincere wish of the people of Taiwan as well. It may not be difficult to realize if China demonstrates a commitment to peace.
Joseph Wu is deputy secretary-general of the Presidential Office.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS