President Chen Shui-bian (
However, due to the official restraints of their mission, they may not be able to challenge the hypocrisy of the major powers, which advocate maintaining the so-called status quo and stability in the region at the expense of democracy.
I have no doubt about US President George W. Bush's sincerity in support of democracy in Taiwan. When he stated his opposition to any unilateral decision either by China or Taiwan to change the status quo, he conspicuously avoided using the word "referendum."
Even senior US officials prefer to remain anonymous when they imply that the US is concerned about the referendum.
Bush and his administration decline to define the term "status quo," but the PRC uses its propaganda campaign to try to define the status quo as being based on "one China," with Taiwan a part of China. Beijing claims that any referendum in Taiwan is a step toward Taiwanese independence. Unlike the US, the PRC is not ashamed to oppose a democratic referendum process.
For Taiwan, it is unfortunate that certain China hands have a stubborn habit of appeasing the PRC at the expense of the fundamental political rights of the people of Taiwan.
They do not blame the PRC's threat to use force for disrupting stability in the Taiwan Strait, but instead accuse Taiwan's democratization of being a cause for concern.
If the US and China are sincere about maintaining stability in the region, the right approach is for the major powers to respect the democratic process and recognize the true status quo concerning national borders -- and integrate Taiwan and North Korea into the international community.
Taiwan is a full democracy and North Korea, like the PRC, is a communist totalitarian regime. North Korea is violating international rules and Taiwan is not. But to a certain degree both of them have been isolated from the international community. At the insistence of South Korea, the US and Japan refuse to recognize the rogue state of North Korea.
Submitting to the demands of the PRC, the US, Japan, South Korea and other major powers refuse to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.
If a Taiwan under authoritarian rule was good enough for the US, Japan and other major powers to recognize as a sovereign state, a democratic Taiwan is in a better position to be recognized as a sovereign state.
Taiwan has been excluded from the UN and international organizations such as the World Bank and the World Health Organization for over 30 years. The US and Japan have refused to recognize Taiwan as an independent state for over two decades. This is not the right way to handle international affairs.
Pro-China scholars and politicians used to argued that isolating China could only be bad for stability. Similarly, the isolation of Taiwan and North Korea is not helpful for the stability of the region. Therefore, the best approach for managing the two flash points in East Asia is for the major powers to respect democracy and recognize the status quo.
The US, Japan and South Korea should recognize North Korea and the US, Japan, Russia and South Korea should persuade the PRC to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state and integrate Taiwan into the international community.
It was wrong and embarrassing for Bush to indicate opposition to Taiwan's democratic referendum process. He and his aides should know better.
When Lithuania declared independence and faced the threat of a military crackdown by the former Soviet Union, then US president George Bush instructed ambassador Jack Matlock to warn Soviet president Mikhail Gobarchev against the use of force and suggested a referendum as a proper way to resolve the impasse.
The current US president should stand firm on principle in dealing with disputes in the region. He should reassess the "one China" policy, respect democratic evolution and recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.
Inclusion of Taiwan in the international community, instead of exclusion, will contribute to stability in the region.
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing