Since President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was re-elected, the Chinese government has escalated threats to use force against Taiwan. The People's Liberation Army has also staged mock invasion exercises against the nation.
Employing political and economic leverage, Beijing has pressured other countries such as Singapore and Australia not to side with Taiwan if China attacks.
It is no wonder that the Taiwan Strait has emerged, in the opinion of some analysts, as Asia's most dangerous flashpoint. Taking advantage of the US preoccupation with Iraq, the emboldened Beijing government has warned the US that it will pay a high price if it were to assist Taiwan militarily when China attacks the island.
The brazen threat appears to have succeeded in weakening the will of some US leaders in their support for Taiwan.
The most telling sign of such a change of heart is the Democratic Party's failure to reaffirm its 2000 party platform pledge to support Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act during its recent convention in Boston.
Since its adoption in 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act has been instrumental in preserving peace and stability in the Strait.
The law's important security provisions have been reiterated and reaffirmed by the US congressional resolutions on many occasions.
The executive branch has also faithfully abided by the law.
For example, former US president Bill Clinton dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to local waters shortly after China launched missiles over the country in the early spring of 2000.
And, in his effort to make crystal clear the US position, President George W. Bush publicly pledged "to do whatever
it takes to help Taiwan defend itself" in April 2001 and approved the sale of major defensive weapons to Taiwan.
The US has paid dearly for occasional ambiguity in its post-WWII foreign policy.
It was the US' uncommitted position on the defense of South Korea in the late 1940s that emboldened Communist North Korea to invade South Korea in June1950.
And again it was the same ambiguity that emboldened former president Saddam Hussein's Iraq to attack Kuwait in August 1990.
To insure peace and stability in the Strait, the US therefore cannot afford to be ambiguous.
A bellicose China is a threat to peace and stability in East Asia as well as to democratic Taiwan.
Alarmed by China's military build-up, Russia and Japan, for example, have joined the US in opposing the EU's proposed lifting of their arms sales ban on China, a sanction imposed on Beijing after China's use of force to crush pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in June 1989.
Japan's steady move to upgrade its self-defense forces and strengthen its military ties with the US is also a logical response to the rising military power of its increasingly nationalistic and major Asian rival.
In short, China can only be dissuaded from attacking Taiwan when it knows for sure that the US is unambiguous on the issue of aiding Taiwan.
With the planned US redeployment of ground troops in Asia and Europe, the Beijing decision-makers might be inclined to misjudge US determination in protecting its national interest overseas, particularly in Asia.
It is thus essential that the US is not ambiguous in its stand to defend Taiwan.
It is consequently reassuring to learn that the Republican Party adopted on Aug. 30 a
party platform in which it made unmistakably clear that the US will aid Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act if it is attacked by China.
Chen Ching-chih is professor emeritus of history at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS