As the presidential inauguration approaches, the whole world, especially the US and China, is carefully watching to see what messages President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) will deliver in his inaugural speech that might affect Taipei-Washington-Beijing relations.
Washington is not simply waiting around for Chen to elaborate on his agenda for a new constitution by 2006. The Bush administration is making a tremendous effort to exert its influence -- through diplomatic pressure as well as through the media -- to redirect Chen's cross-strait policy.
At the heart of US concerns is how Chen will manage cross-strait relations while rewriting the Constitution, but without giving the impression that he is unilaterally changing the status quo.
The Bush administration has so far found Chen's rationale for implementing constitutional revision through referendums unconvincing. There are clearly limits to what the US will support when it comes to constitutional reform. US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly told a hearing on Capitol Hill that "the US does not support independence for Taiwan or unilateral moves that would change the status quo as we define it." In other words, the US will watch every step Chen makes, and will feel free to comment whenever it feels he is crossing the line.
But can the status quo be solely judged by what Taiwan can and cannot do? What about the authoritarian regime across the Taiwan Strait that has never renounced the use of force against this nation? The "status quo" is a growing number of missiles deployed along China's southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The status quo is Beijing's relentless effort to sabotage Taiwan's sovereignty by promoting its ideas of "one China" and "one country, two systems."
It is China's relentless saber-rattling and diplomatic squeezing that has lead to a growing anti-China sentiment and the rise of Taiwanese consciousness. This is the origin of potential changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
Washington may ignore the danger inherent in Beijing's efforts to restrain Taiwan, but it should not portray Chen's efforts to consolidate democracy as an attempt to pursue independence. Chen reiterated during the recent election campaign that a new constitution would not change the status quo or the name and territory of the Republic of China. Washington should trust Taiwan and show it more respect if Chen incorporates such a pledge in his May 20 speech.
The Bush administration has long argued that Beijing is a lot more uncontrollable than Taiwan and therefore Taipei should refrain from rocking the boat. This notion is neither persuasive nor respectful of Taiwan's democratization. The double standards of the US are clear: it treats Taiwan's democratically elected president as a reckless troublemaker while sycophantically hosting China's leaders. It should apologize to the people of Taiwan for trying to deprive them of their right to say no to China.
Taipei and Washington should work on strengthen-ing bilateral communication over the next four years. The Bush administration must also contemplate the extent to which the US could strike a balance between safeguarding its national interests and those of democratic Taiwan while trying to build constructive and candid relations with China.
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