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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS