A few days ago, US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a lecture on Asian democracy and US foreign policy at the Heritage Foundation, an important US think tank. Although Powell's lecture was mainly a general discussion of the US view of and assistance for the development of democracy in the Asia-Pacific region, the part dealing with the cross-strait relationship was significant in that it revealed some important information.
When recounting the direction of US efforts in the Asia-Pacific region, Powell stressed that the US will help Asian nations build representative democratic governments, and that the US role in regional security can be thought of as an important shield behind which democracy can develop. Based on this understanding, Powell proposed a few focal points for future efforts, also mentioning the cross-strait relationship.
He stressed that even though the US wants to see a rising China, it should also be a responsible China. At the same time, the US does all it can to keep peace and ensure stability in the Taiwan Strait and adheres to its one-China policy as defined by the three US-Sino communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. Powell said that, "We do not support Taiwan's independence, and we oppose moves by either side to unilaterally change the status quo."
He also stressed that, "In this regard, we also strongly oppose the use of force or its threat across the Taiwan Strait. China's military build-up opposite Taiwan is destabilizing. We urge a posture more conducive to the peaceful resolution of existing disputes."
We are very clear on the fact that China has internationally labelled Taiwan's referendum and other measures to deepen democracy as attempts at changing the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, while pretending to be an innocent, peace-loving nation and concealing the fact that its missile deployment is the actual unilateral threat to the peaceful status quo. It was also Beijing's diplomatic and propaganda attacks that forced US President George W. Bush to say, in front of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
However, following strong efforts by Taiwan's government to communicate with the US and the announcement of the actual referendum questions, Washington has taken a more neutral approach towards the referendum, publicly neither opposing nor supporting it.
Simply put, the US does not believe that Taiwan's referendum is an attempt to change the peaceful status quo. On the contrary, Powell in his lecture specifically referred to China's military deployments and said he believed them to be destabilizing. From this perspective, the US is gradually returning to a more balanced view instead of placing all pressure and responsibility on Taiwan.
More important, one of the main goals when initiating the peace referendum was the hope to use it to alert the international community and particularly the US to the fact that China's missile threat against Taiwan should be taken seriously. Powell's criticism of China's armed threat proves that the efforts to initiate the peace referendum are beginning to have an effect internationally and that the first positive reactions are appearing.
Another part of the lecture worth noticing was that Powell said that Taiwan is one of Asia's model democracies. Although this is not a new formulation from Washington, and although Powell himself has said that Taiwan is not a troublemaker but an example of success, the timing of the statement is very significant.
First of all, the Taiwan-US relationship has indeed been at a low point in the recent past, and Taiwan has also had to withstand a lot of US criticism and pressure. Powell's public praise for Taiwan's democratic achievements at this point in time shows that the US-Taiwan relationship is gradually warming up again.
Second, whether by chance or deliberately, the timing of Powell's lecture coincided with major political activities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. In Taiwan, it was of course the intense presidential election campaign and referendum debate, and in China, it was the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).
Compared to Taiwan, where the people can elect their president and vote in referendums, both the NPC and the CPPCC are but the Chinese dictatorship's rubber stamp. This is exactly the reason why Powell, by publicly praising Taiwan's democratic achievements and pointing out that the goal of last year's 500,000-strong demonstration in Hong Kong was to win basic human rights, also highlighted the lack of democracy in China and the Chinese government's destruction of freedom.
In fact, the 2003 Human Rights Reports published by the US Department of State earlier this month denounced China, saying that its human rights record has deteriorated on every point. The Chinese government has been severely criticized by the US for things such as persecuting the Falun Gong religious organization, not allowing its people the freedom of association, suppressing religious freedom and human rights in Tibet, and for causing democratic government to regress in Hong Kong.
During Powell's testimony in Congress, he further said that the US is considering the introduction of a resolution in the UN condemning China for its suppression of human rights. In contrast, the human rights reports affirmed Taiwan's political human rights, pointing out that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government has made good progress in its efforts to eliminate corruption and vote-buying and mentioned that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has signed into effect a Referendum Law (公民投票法).
To sum up, with Taiwan in the final countdown toward a presidential election, Powell's lecture expresses a positive and balanced position. Democracy is indeed an important basis for Taiwan as it continues its quest for international support and recognition. This is also why the presidential election and the referendum are not only a necessary foundation for deepening democracy domestically, but also a necessary tool enabling Taiwan to promote its international diplomacy, a tool that the Taiwanese people should value and put to good use.
Lo Chih-cheng is executive director of the Institute for National Policy Research.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
A delegation of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials led by Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is to travel to China tomorrow for a six-day visit to Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing, which might end with a meeting between Cheng and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The trip was announced by Xinhua news agency on Monday last week, which cited China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Song Tao (宋濤) as saying that Cheng has repeatedly expressed willingness to visit China, and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Xi have extended an invitation. Although some people have been speculating about a potential Xi-Cheng
No state has ever formally recognized the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) as a legal entity. The reason is not a lack of legitimacy — the CTA is a functioning exile government with democratic elections and institutions — but the iron grip of realpolitik. To recognize the CTA would be to challenge the People’s Republic of China’s territorial claims, a step no government has been willing to take given Beijing’s economic leverage and geopolitical weight. Under international law, recognition of governments-in-exile has precedent — from the Polish government during World War II to Kuwait’s exile government in 1990 — but such recognition