The repercussions of the strong comments made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell during his two-day visit to China denying that Taiwan is an independent nation have not ended. Although a lot of effort has been exerted from different angles to interpret and clarify this incident, a diverse range of views makes the whole issue even more complicated. I think that we can regard Powell's statement as a preventive measure intended by Washington to pull Taiwan back to the status quo.
Powell's comments clearly make the following points.
First, the US does not want to see either side take unilateral action, interpret the "one China" policy, or settle on a structure for future cross-strait relations, because if they do the US will inevitably be involved in a cross-strait conflict. Therefore, the US has taken the initiative to prevent a possible war that could take place within a few years.
Second, as for the US, its best strategic advantage in the Asia-Pacific region is served by maintaining stability, and the most important factor to achieve this is by maintaining the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. When the US senses that Taiwan intends to change the current situation, it will do whatever it must to prevent any harm to US international interests.
Third, Powell's warning-like comments on Taiwan indicate that the US attaches greater importance to Sino-US relations than its relationship with Taiwan. Nor is it afraid of revealing its priorities. We cannot rule out the possibility that the US has used this statement to calm China over US arms sales to Taiwan.
Since the Bush administration declared that it has a responsibility to protect Taiwan and will do its best to assist Taiwan's national defense four years ago, to the warning signal given right before the end of this administrative term, it is foreseeable that the US will continue to pursue an increasingly defined China policy.
The next four years will be crucial in determining stability across the Taiwan Strait. How can Taiwan handle the upcoming challenges? If Taiwan refuses to face up to cross-strait issues, it will waste its current economic and political advantages, perhaps even losing the US' moral support. If we understand the inevitable nature of direct cross-strait talks, then our problem lies in how to face China's insistence on its "one China" principle.
If the "one China" principle is the inescapable crux of the matter, then how can Taiwan respond with a "one China" proposal based on its best strategic interests? The best example to soothe conflict and create prosperity should be the peace process of European integration. If we can follow the spirit of the EU, eliminate any possible military and political factors that can trigger conflicts, and launch a multi-level cooperation that can reinforce mutual trust and dependency, the stability and prosperity of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be guaranteed.
Therefore, we can propose the concept of "one China" based on the model of the EU as a response to China's rigid "one-China" definition. This new "one China" will give Taiwan the following guarantees:
First, maintaining Taiwan's status quo, and not changing Taiwan's sovereignty: the development of the EU is not involved in national sovereignty issues of each member country, but rather, it only emphasizes the cooperation of policy issues that are beneficial to the EU as a whole.
The issue that touches off cross-strait conflict is the controversy of Taiwan's sovereignty; if we can incorporate the spirit of the EU, and focus on the cooperation and mutual trust in diverse issues and multi-layered administration, we can develop a bilaterally beneficial partnership while avoiding sensitive issues.
Second, keeping an open mind as to the ultimate goal of an integration process: the future forms of development of the EU will not be confined to becoming a single country, a federation, a confederation, or some other forms.
A "one China" based on the EU should retain its flexibility, and put an emphasis on finding collective benefits. If the ultimate goal is defined too soon, the integration process may be impeded.
Third, the "one China" based on the EU will benefit the expansion of Taiwan's diplomacy and economy: the EU experience indicates that a strong economic community facilitates each country's respective interests. The integration of Taiwan and China will substantially help both countries' economy and trade; also, with the establishment of mutual trust [across the Taiwan Strait], Taiwan will have a broader stage before the international community.
Fourth, facilitating China's democratization: the EU can be seen as a collective body of democratic countries in Europe. The mechanism and discipline of the EU reinforce its member countries' insistence on their values of democracy; it is also the impetus for prospective member countries to promote democracy.
Taiwan's gradually maturing democracy will become the factor that influences China during the cross-strait integration process. At the same time, democratic China is the best partner for Taiwan in its sustainable development.
Within Taiwan, there are different proposals for cross-strait relations. The concept of "one China" based on the EU can not only take care of different ideologies among different factions within Taiwan, but also meet China's "one China" demand.
Francis Kan is an assistant research fellow at the Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS