In assessing the state of cross-strait relations, we find the US struggling to maintain the status quo. We find China, within its closed-door system, apparently struggling over whether to strengthen its use of a military threat to resolve the "Taiwan issue," or to use a soft approach to convince Taiwan to succumb. And we find Taiwan, closer than ever to being a separate national entity, struggling with the issue of moving aggressively toward a de jure resolution of its political status or more carefully maintaining the status quo. In this unsettled atmosphere, policies have become outdated and need to be reviewed.
New policy decisions about cross-strait relations are not likely to surface in the present circumstances. The US has presidential and congressional elections a few weeks away and Taiwan has a legislative election a month later. China can change, although it will take longer to discern what effect this will have. Even if there is no change in administration after the US election, there will be reviews on all sides to adjust to the different atmosphere.
China's cross-strait policies have fundamentally not changed, but the very deep change in its own environment has made those policies unsustainable. It has greater influence, but it is also becoming much more dependent on the rest of the world for its markets, capital, resources, information and know-how. It is far less free to do what it pleases. In addition, both the "one China" principle and the "one country, two systems" approach have become unacceptable, not just to the leaders, but also to the people of Taiwan.
Taiwan's transformation of its political system to a democracy is no less spectacular than China's transformation to a market economy. Furthermore, one of the most important pillars of the US-Taiwan relationship in the past was Taiwan's acceptance of maintaining a low profile to refrain from agitating China. This policy continued through the 1990s, when democratization began blossoming. But trying to maintain a low profile in a democracy where political leaders have to deal with voters' wishes was clearly becoming unsustainable. Then president Lee Teng-hui (
In more recent times, there has been some improvement in this bilateral relationship, but finding some way to effectively manage this unique system under the present circumstances and in the long term is still a work in progress. The need to expand exchanges between senior officials on both sides has become especially important.
An effort to address these outdated policies was made in 1994 in the Taiwan Policy Review. The preface explaining the reasons for conducting the review was very well done. It set forth cogently the profound changes that had taken place in Taiwan since the policy had been established 15 years before. The final results did not live up to the stated need, however. Trying to improve relations with China without changing the US' Taiwan policy, a questionable objective, prevailed.
There was never a question of officiality, however, as the US was committed to maintaining an unofficial relationship until such time as the two sides could resolve the issue of Taiwan's political status.
But the need to find ways to enhance high-level contacts in a relationship that was becoming increasingly broad and sophisticated was not met, and neither was the need to address the impact on Taiwan of the changing architecture of security, or the need for Taiwan's participation in the international community. But the momentum of its growing democracy continued nonetheless. The latter part of the 1990s saw the beginning of direct elections at all levels, the missile crisis in 1996 which awakened many to the changes and Lee's "special state-to-state" proposal, all signs of a different Taiwan developing in a different atmosphere.
Then came 2000. The change of government to a very different political party that had few resources and no experience of governing, and was faced with a hostile legislature, made progress in all areas very difficult. But during the four years that followed -- in which the Chinese government seriously erred in refusing to deal with the new rulers -- the political profile of the people in Taiwan changed dramatically. A consensus on Taiwan's identity has become closer to unity than ever before, and it is a Taiwanese identity that has emerged. The results of this year's presidential election demonstrated this.
In my judgment, there are three imperatives that need to be addressed: first a meaningful change in the US' rules of engagement. In 2000, the US administration changed as well. In terms of the US' relationship with Taiwan, it was more forthcoming than any US administration since the switch in recognition to China in 1979. But with the changing political atmosphere in Taiwan, the US "rules of engagement," which have in any event been overtaken, now face an increasingly urgent challenge that must be addressed.
If the US wants to support Taiwan's democratic system while working to prevent catastrophe ensuing from its differences with China, it must find a new set of rules for its "unofficial relationship." It must deal with Taiwan without supporting either side's claim to sovereignty. It must treat the Taiwanese government as legitimate and responsible to its people, and conduct its relationship with the country's leaders accordingly.
Second, in developing a more realistic relationship with Taiwan, democratic countries should increase pressure on China to better understand a Taiwan that is indeed different, and to develop more realistic proposals for resolving China's differences with Taiwan.
Third, an important domestic challenge for Taiwan, with its popular democracy based on the will of the people, is to develop an understanding of the dangers as well as the opportunities posed by deciding what Taiwan's future should be. The US has clearly and often reiterated that under Taiwan's democratic system, it will accept the consent of the people of Taiwan. The people must understand the responsibility they have in making such decisions.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS