The last month has been a succinct demonstration that the US policy toward Taiwan is in shambles. We have seen the Department of Defense confirm that starting next year US military attaches will be posted at the American Institute in Taiwan. It is also a matter of perhaps not so common knowledge that relations between the US military establishment and its Taiwanese counterpart are the best they have been for 20 years -- so far so good.
Compare this to the State Department's behavior: "O what a falling off was there," to quote Hamlet. November saw US Secretary of State Colin Powell, that sorry wreck of a once principled man, trying to buy China's help over the North Korean nuclear program by denigrating Taiwan's status, in absolute contradiction of both international law and 30 years of US policy. Then there was the furor over Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's statements.
Taiwan has whipped itself into a frenzy over the perfectly obvious, while the real viciousness of Armitage's statement has been ignored. Alarmingly, when prompted to name a "landmine" in US-China relations, Armitage named Taiwan. Yet isn't this obvious? China wants Taiwan, the US doesn't want China to have Taiwan. Taiwan is therefore a source of conflict between the two -- and this has nothing to do with anything Taiwan does.
Some find it appalling to learn that the US is not committed under the Taiwan Relations Act to defend Taiwan in the event of an attack. Since the TRA was passed in 1978, one would think that Taiwan's punditry and politicians would have got around to reading it over the last 26 years. But nobody ever bothers, and as a result the TRA has become like the Magna Carta -- notable for what people think it's about, rather than what it actually says.
Armitage's remarks concerning US intervention in case of China's attack being decided by Congress were a sleight of hand. Actually, it is up to the president under the War Powers Act, and Congressional approval only comes two to three months down the line. On the other hand, Congress has always been far more supportive of Taiwan than the White House.
If there was a time Taiwan should have raised its voice over Armitage's remarks, it was over his highly offensive "We all agree that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China." Who is this "we?" The US has never agreed that there was only one China. At best it has said that since the two sides of the Strait agreed there was only one China it would not challenge that position. After breaking relations with Taiwan, it "recognized" Beijing as the sole government of China but only "acknowledged" that Beijing claimed Taiwan. Acknowledgement does not mean approval or agreement. It is simply a statement that one understands the other side's position, not that one supports it.
Challenging Armitage on the "we" was the first thing TECRO should have done after the PBS broadcast -- otherwise what do we have diplomats for? Amazingly, this has still gone uncommented on in Taiwan.
Armitage's remarks could only be understood as saying everyone agrees that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. This is of course untrue; also in no way does it reflect US government policy. Here Taiwan should have kicked up a stink, but the amateurishness of its political class is such that it doesn't even realize the difference between speaking the truth and real harm to its interests.
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