Taiwan is understandably upset by US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statement that it is not a sovereign country. He reportedly said in a TV interview, "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy." He has also said that, "We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome," urging them to work toward "peaceful reunification."
It might look as though Powell was simply elaborating America's "one China" policy. But in laying down its eventual outcome of "reunification," his statement is a bit over the top. There has reportedly been some clarification that his use of the terminology "peaceful reunification" should have been "peaceful resolution". But the damage is done, because it will encourage China's intransigence and bellicosity.
Ever since the US recognized communist China, Beijing's Taiwan policy has been two-fold. First, to keep up the pressure on the US to ditch Taiwan. Second, to threaten Taiwan militarily. Neither has worked so far.
Beijing had hoped that the then-developing "strategic partnership" between the US and China against a shared Soviet threat would give it important leverage to influence Washing-ton's Taiwan policy. But that didn't work. In any case, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the underlying rationale of the so-called strategic partnership disappeared. And the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 further complicated Sino-US relationship.
Even today, China's basic Taiwan strategy remains the same: To bring about Taiwan's unification with China, with the US as a facilitator of sorts; and, simultaneously, to keep up military pressure on Taiwan.
Of late China believes it has acquired some leverage in the matter by its cooperation with the US on global terrorism, and by being not difficult on Iraq. More importantly, Washington needs China's active help to put a lid on North Korea's nuclear program.
The US is not going anywhere much with North Korea on the nuclear question. China is believed to be the key to any kind of progress on the subject.
But what is in it for China? It obviously wants a quid pro quo. And that quid pro quo is Taiwan. Beijing is not happy that its help on a range of US strategic objectives is not appreciated and rewarded. It has let known its displeasure, even hinting that this is not a blank check.
Therefore, Washington has been under considerable pressure to "rein in" President Chen Shui-bian (
Overstretched as the US is in Iraq and on global terrorism, and worrying about the unpredictable North Koreans with their atomic toys, it is keen to avoid being sucked into another conflict. As a result, Taipei is required not to anger and provoke Beijing.
Powell's statement, therefore, is intended to assure Beijing, as he was making a quick visit through Japan, China and South Korea, that the US doesn't subscribe to the idea of an independent and sovereign Taiwan. However, it still favors its resolution through a peaceful dialogue. And it will continue to sell arms to Taiwan to defend itself against Chinese military build-up (attack) across the Taiwan Strait.
The problem with such half-baked initiatives is that they haven't mollified China, but left Taiwan in a state of confusion and unease. Since Washington seems to be the conduit for Taiwan, why bother responding to Taipei's peaceful initiatives? The need for the US is to build up Taiwan as an equal negotiating partner with Beijing, and not to undermine its position.
Beijing seems to believe that as the US gets deeper into the Iraqi quagmire, and North Korea continues to be difficult and unpredictable, its leverage with Washington will only increase. That may not be true. Considering that the US is determined not to allow any rival power to challenge its supremacy, it is unlikely to allow China to gobble up Taiwan.
As for Taiwan: Even though the US is a valued ally and protector, Taipei would need to develop its military self-reliance to make it difficult and costly for China to undertake any armed adventure. At home, its political and business elites would need to develop an agreed national strategy to face the threat from across the Strait.
At the level of the elected government, though, there is no ambiguity about Taiwan's sovereign status. Chen has reiterated that "the existence of [the] Republic of China is a fact and Taiwan is definitely an independent and sovereign country."
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
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