As we put our pen to paper, it is June 1775. Much debate is going on about cross-Atlantic relations: King George III in London is still insisting on a "one Britain" policy, and emphasizes that the colonies are an inseparable part of the British Empire.
This "one Britain" policy has served us well for six generations, and is the bedrock of stability for relations across the Atlantic. Of course, the great majority of the population in the colonies are of English descent, speak English, and should therefore be considered subjects of the British throne.
Now, the problem is that an increasing number of people in the colonies are starting to talk about democracy, and are even advocating American independence. It is of course obvious that this would be detrimental to stability in the region, since Britain would never allow secession.
A couple of months ago, some pro-independence hotheads caused some problems at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. We certainly hope they will cease their provocative actions.
There is even talk that some of the separatists, headed by a Benjamin Franklin and one George Washington, are planning to write articles of confederation for the United Colonies of America. This is creeping independence, and should be avoided at all cost. Heaven forbid, it might lead to a Declaration of Independence and a new constitution.
The people in the colonies should keep quiet, be happy and accept the status quo. Any change in the status quo should be mutually agreed to with the authorities in London. Any unilateral steps by the colonies might lead to a crisis, which would provoke military action from King George, and would draw the rest of Europe into a war between England and the colonies.
Part of the problem is rising American nationalism. The people there are forgetting their English roots, neglecting proper British manners and customs, in particular the adequate distinction between the upper and lower classes of society.
In all this, the King has been very flexible and conciliatory: He has emphasized that there should be peaceful reunification and he has sent some 500 warships to the American coast, which will only attack if the colonies declare independence.
The British Empire considers these jurisdictions renegade colonies that must be reunited, by force if necessary. It would be irresponsible for the American colonies to treat these statements as empty threats.
Britain has gone to great lengths to prevent other nations from establishing ties with the colonies. Still, there are some in Europe, notably France and the Dutch Republic, inexplicably siding with the rebels in the American colonies. These nations are illegally selling weapons to the colonies, thereby reinforcing their sense of independence from the British Empire.
One of the rebels, Thomas Jefferson, is even reported to be in The Hague, where he is copying the 1568 Dutch Declaration of Independence from Spain.
In any case, Britain is the world power at the moment: the Union Jack is flying securely from the Caribbean to the Mediterranean, from Africa to India. Challenging her might would be disastrous for world peace. We therefore do not support American independence, and will even consider opposing it.
Let us hope the message is clear.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS