Presenting a review of US policy toward Taiwan, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia James Kelly testified at a House International Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday in Washington.
Kelly's comments were considered the first official response to recent developments in the Taiwan Strait. While reiterating the US' "one China" policy based on the three Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act, Kelly reminded President Chen Shui-bian (
These uncomfortable realities are closely associated with growing misconceptions about Taiwan's status, a lack of trust regarding Chen's steps toward constitutional reform and a potential military crisis originating from China's reckless and irrational miscalculations. It is Washington's conviction that all these circumstances could drag Washington into an unnecessary military conflict with Beijing. Entangled in his own global fight against terrorism, the mishandling of the Iraq fiasco and cost-benefit calculations surrounding the upcoming US election, the last thing that US President George W. Bush wants is more trouble abroad.
Chen's continuing push for recognition of the reality that Taiwan is a de facto independent and sovereign state -- with a new mandate after the recent presidential election -- coupled with his pledge to enact a new constitution through a referendum, caused Washington to draw a "red line" before Chen makes his inaugural speech on May 20. Therefore, Kelly's comments should be read from a broad and strategic perspective; we should not simply take one paragraph out of context. The main reason that Kelly emphasized the "US definition of the status quo" was to establish a "preventive mechanism" to enable the US to monitor every step of Chen's constitutional reform process.
Despite the fact that the Chen administration has outlined the constitutional revision process as a series of moves toward establishing good governance and improved political institutions, and has sworn that the process will have no bearing on the status quo, Washington is still "uncertain" about the context in which Taiwan's government will pursue its reform agenda and about which concrete proposals the agenda might contain. Hence, as Kelly pointed out: "There are limitations with respect to what the US will support as Taiwan considers possible changes to its Constitution."
The US concern over Chen's next step is understand-able, but not necessarily unsolvable. What distinguishes democratic Taiwan from authoritarian China is transparency in decision-making and a democratic system of checks and balances.
While Washington worries about Beijing's "dangerous, objectionable and foolish response" to Taiwan's constitutional changes in the near future -- which might endanger US interests in Asia -- Beijing's response does not justify stopping Taiwanese people from upgrading their democracy. In other words, it is not up to Beijing to decide what Taiwan can or cannot do.
What the US should work harder at is pushing China toward democratic openness and renouncing the use of force against Taiwan. Taiwan is a free and pluralist society where diverse points of view can be valued and added into decision-making processes. Chen is not a dictator but a democratically elected president. Leaders from Zhongnanhai are the troublemakers.
To look on the bright side, though, there is an urgent need for both Taipei and Washington to build efficient, candid and constructive channels of communication. High-ranking and bilateral talks must be instituted on a regular basis as a way to straighten things out.
No matter how the Chen administration plans to engage its Chinese counterparts on framing a peaceful and stable interaction, Washington can play the role of balancer and facilitator. As Taiwan deepens its democracy by redesigning its Constitution, the US can be of considerable help by providing advice based on its own constitutional experience.
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