Taiwan-US relations have once again grabbed media attention. Yet contrary to some reports, recent remarks by US officials were not aimed at dissuading President Chen Shui-bian (
Instead, these remarks were made in a particular context: a US congressional hearing on the Taiwan Relations Act's (TRA) first 25 years, an occasion where US officials had to address this complex issue. Several seminars on these issues were also held at around the same time, thereby heating up the topic.
Yet these remarks represented no change in the underlying Taiwan-US relationship. The State Department attaches more importance to the practical interests of the US, while the Congress stresses US popular sentiment. Despite different views taken by the State Department and the Pentagon, the difference is not yet huge in general.
The hearing was held just after the presidential election. The US was concerned with the decision to hold referendums before the election. After the election, there were rumors surrounding American Institute in Taiwan Chairwoman Therese Shaheen's resignation.
These factors complicated Taiwan-US relations, but much more important changes in cross-strait relations have taken place over 25 years.
These changes include Beijing's leadership reshuffle last year and Taiwan's elections, but also China's greater flexibility on anti-terrorism efforts and economic issues, a policy intended to rope in the US to act against Taiwan. China has accelerated its military preparations against Taiwan and used these to intimidate the US. And Taiwan has deepened its democracy and increased its national consciousness and resistance to the idea of "one China."
In light of these changes, both officials and academics naturally have developed new perspectives on the cross-strait relationship.
Washington now understands that it would not be able to keep out of a war if China attacks Taiwan. Worried that Beijing may react irrationally to Taiwan's proposals for referendums and a new constitution, the Bush administration needs to repeatedly remind Taiwan, sometimes with harsh rhetoric, of the risks that accompany these actions.
Yet the US also increases its arms sales and military cooperation with Taiwan in view of China's growing military threat. Military expert Richard Fisher even suggested that Washington sell offensive weapons to Taiwan as one concrete measure to deter Chinese military operations against Taiwan. The US also strengthened its military deployment in the Pacific, reaffirming the Taiwan Relations Act.
Beijing insists that the three joint communiques it signed with the US govern Sino-US relations. The Chinese government interprets the US understanding of one China as a recognition of one China, and its stance of not supporting Taiwan independence as opposition to it.
Because of his understanding of Beijing's arbitrary thuggishness, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia James Kelly was denying Beijing's monopoly on interpreting cross-strait relations, recognizing that China could attack Taiwan simply because it says Taiwan is declaring independence. Beijing's interpretation of the status quo is different from that of the US and Taiwan. China not only steps up war preparations to alter the status quo but also actively uses propaganda to achieve reunification.
Taiwan's democratization challenges the three communiques signed by Washington and Beijing. The Shanghai Communique signed in 1972 stated that "the US acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China." But how could all Chinese express their views when both sides still endured authoritarian regimes? At least since Taiwan's democratization, many Taiwanese do not identify themselves as Chinese, nor do they recognize Taiwan as part of "one China."
During his visit to Singapore, US Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Daley said that Washington does not oppose Taiwan or China changing the status quo, but any change has to be peaceful and requires the consent of both sides.
People in Taiwan can express their consent or disapproval in referendums. But China is not allowed to change the status quo before the mechanism of referendums is made available to Chinese people. Therefore, the US should warn China against attacking Taiwan as well as seeking rapid political unification.
Provided that the US can base its new decisions on the new circumstances, the US spirit can truly prosper in the world and the long-term instability in the Taiwan Strait can be resolved.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Jennie Shih
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