Though the primaries have not been completed, it is becoming increasingly likely that the candidates for the presidential election in the US this coming November will be President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. The two political parties will soon begin putting together their respective platforms, with the primary focus on domestic issues (taxes, employment, homeland security, social welfare), but close behind will be Iraq and the problematic state of US international relationships.
Cross-strait issues, as in the past, will likely be included, but well buried in the debate about international relations. By the time US elections take place, Taiwan's attention will be on the Legislative Yuan elections in December.
On the Democratic side, most of the candidates in the primaries have voiced strong support for Taiwan. The leading contender on the Democratic side, however, when responding to a question, said that he was a strong supporter of the "one China" policy, and that Taiwan should consider the "one country, two systems" offer.
That view is not likely to make it to the Democratic platform, however. Few of his senatorial comrades are familiar with details of the cross-strait issues, but it was not encouraging to hear a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggest the people of Taiwan should "use the framework of one country, two systems" to solve cross-strait problems. One has to hope his advisers will eventually bring his knowledge about Taiwan closer to reality.
On the Republican side, Bush has made a strong case for the high priority the US must have in expanding and strengthening democracy around the world. He gets full support for this from Congress and the American public. On this point, Taiwan's security shield, after the military and the weapons they can procure, is democracy. With the changing national priorities that resulted from Taiwan's democratization, however, military hardware is more difficult to acquire and democracy continues to be challenged by China.
To add to the complexity of America's cross-strait policies is the growing need for the US to work more closely with China on specific issues such as North Korea. So far, the US has maintained a balanced approach to the two sides in the always sensitive cross-strait issue. By doing so, the Bush administration also maintains the support of the American voters on this subject. But the mixture of interests that America has will make the wording used on cross-strait policies in both political platforms a goldmine (or a minefield) of interesting rhetoric.
As the many experts on China and Taiwan in the US prepare papers or briefings for candidates and party positions for the next elections, many of the positions emanating from Taiwan and China will influence what the experts write. For Taiwan, most of what they hear or read may come from the views of academics and officials, but the most influential will likely be the Taiwan media. What these same people hear or read from China will be the organized and narrow view from the government-controlled media and officials. That is an advantage for China.
The formal public debate in Taipei by the two candidates for the presidency, on the other hand, is an advantage for Taiwan. It is not what was said, so much as simply having an open, orderly and fairly run debate by respected individuals and organizations. It established a precedent that is good for the people of Taiwan while also assuring people abroad that democracy is deeply embedded.
Also, the referendum and discussion about constitutional change can demonstrate the depth and maturity of the democracy that has been achieved. The process of doing this without raising tensions while accomplishing an objective is not new for Taiwan. Localization of top official positions in government, acceptance of election results, direct elections, downsizing the government -- all have been accomplished gradually and peacefully, although not always without anxiety in Washington and opposition in Beijing.
This same strategy of gradually making needed changes to keep pace with realities will come to be accepted as not being provocative or changing the cross-strait status quo. It may have been helpful when the long-standing objective of using referendums as a means of change arose, and at the same time provide a universally recognized right for people to more directly play a role in governance.
China had succeeded in convincing China experts abroad that referendums for Taiwan were intolerable. Since this issue was not previously an active problem, the fact that holding a referendum is a basic human right employed by democracies worldwide simply was not considered. In fact, "democracy," from its Greek origins, connotes individual voting on each issue. We now call it a referendum.
For the most part, on the referendum issue, reason has prevailed, and though some anxiety persists, increasingly it is accepted that a wisely considered use of referendums does not change relationships between the US, Taiwan and China, nor threaten a unilateral change of status that could result in bloodshed.
This does not do much for insisting on "maintaining the status quo," except perhaps to encourage a change in nomenclature. This is needed. No change, which is what status quo means, historically has always been the strategy for defeat. Perhaps the situation could be described as "maintain peaceful change." One can also hope that China, which has changed its attitude toward the international community in many ways, will begin to accept that the "one China" principle, "one country, two systems," and the vast number of "compatriots on Taiwan" that supposedly want unification are things of the past.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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