The emergence of a national identity has led Taiwan to redefine its US policy. This could hurt US relations if domestic considerations prevail over strategic interests. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in his inauguration address on May 20, however, seemed to placate US concerns.
He promised that the revision of the Constitution would not touch on the issues of statehood and sovereignty. He also tacitly reiterated the "five noes" pledge he made four years ago.
Beneath that moderation, however, Taiwan has quietly moved toward a more aggressive foreign policy. Presidential advisor Koo Kuan-min (辜寬敏) has called on the US to revise its "one China" policy. And Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen (陳唐山) has said that the international community should respect Taiwan as a sovereign and independent nation.
The policy shift led to diplomatic tensions with the US in April. Mark Chen stressed that independence and sovereignty were Taiwan's status quo. But Washington rebuked that stance. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly said that Washington would only agree to the status quo as the US defined it.
The US definition of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is quite simple, even though the US policy may seem contradictory. In theory, Washington acknowledges the three communiques it signed with Beijing that say Taiwan is part of China. In practice, however, it considers Taiwan's status to be unresolved and is committed to help the nation defend itself under the Taiwan Relations Act.
The cross-strait status quo, according to Washington, means that China must refrain from using or threatening to use force against Taiwan, while Taiwan must avoid provoking Beijing with unilateral moves toward de facto independence.
The diplomatic status quo is reinforced by the military balance of power in the Taiwan Strait. China's weight in the status quo at first derived from the support of the majority of countries that echo the "one China" principle. But the rise of a Taiwanese identity has weakened the status quo by diminishing Beijing's bargaining power.
To regain leverage, China is trying to tip the military balance in its favor by upping the ante in the cross-strait arms race. But "balance of power" tends to be a tricky concept. If China's goal is to invade Taiwan, the balance of power is, for now, in Taipei's favor because Beijing does not have the amphibious capacity nor the adequate air cover it requires to carry out an invasion, according to a recent Pentagon report.
But if China's objective is to threaten Taiwan's integrity with its 500 missiles, then Beijing already has an edge, since Taipei hasn't acquired the Patriot anti-missile batteries offered by the Bush administration, and is still negotiating to obtain the AEGIS defense system.
The Chen administration should ask Washington to include Taiwan with Japan and South Korea in its proposed missile defense shield, because it looks unlikely that Taiwan can sustain an arms race with China in the long term.
The "one China" policy is a by-product of the Cold War. Its aim was to woo China and confront the Soviet Union with the possibility of a two-front war. But it still serves US interests. The challenge of terrorism has now replaced the Soviet threat and Washington needs China's cooperation over North Korea and the Middle East.
Were Taiwan to see cross-strait relations as a zero-sum game, it could risk the US returning to the "three noes" policy implemented by the Clinton administration. But the widening gap between US and Taiwanese interests comes from Taiwan's failure to understand the meaning of what an alliance is. The Taiwan Relations Act is a US law, not an alliance treaty, but its content turns US-Taiwan relations into a quasi alliance.
Certain statements by Taiwanese officials and the controversy over the possible dispatch of Taiwanese marines to Iraq reflected Taiwan's mismanagement of US ties. When Washington expressed its concern over constitutional reforms, some officials reacted violently by saying that the US was interfering with the nation's internal affairs.
Koo has said that Taiwan is not a colonial state of the US. True, Taiwan does not need to halt its plan to create a new Constitution simply because the US opposes it.
But an alliance, by definition, implies coordinated policies and actions. An alliance offers rights and advantages, but it also sets duties and constraints.
It also serves mutual interests. Taiwan can rely on US military aid to counter China's military threat. And Washington can check China's expansion in the South China Sea through its cooperation with Taiwan.
Chen and public opinion made it clear that Taiwan would not shed blood in the Middle East after two US congressmen introduced a resolution in May calling for the deployment of Taiwanese troops in Iraq. Yet it would be foolish to think that the US would sacrifice its grand strategy in Asia in the name of Taiwanese independence. Kelly bluntly said in April that the US wouldn't defend Taiwan under all circumstances.
No president could sell a war to the US public for the sake of Taiwanese independence. There would be a disjuncture between the perils and the benefits of such a war. US public opinion may accept a war against Chinese militarism, but that would imply a Chinese attack without Taiwanese provocation.
Taiwan must avoid an aggressive cross-strait policy if it does not want to jeopardize its relations with Washington. As such, it should focus on underground diplomacy. That would be more efficient than loud policy pronouncements.
Taiwan should increase efforts on the diplomatic front to prevent the EU from lifting its embargo on arms sales to China. Yet it should also continue to offer olive branches to China. That would help convince the US government that the Chen administration is sincere in dealing with China.
Were Beijing to reject Taipei's offers for talks over the next four years, Washington would draw its own conclusions about China's real motives and eventually upgrade the Taiwan Relations Act.
Trung Latieule is a journalist based in Paris.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS