Stanley Roth visited Taiwan immediately before and after taking office as US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. Both times he was received by top officials. He is considered a top US expert on Asian affairs. So why is he so often wrong?
In 1997, Roth was worried that the Asian financial crisis might bring regressions to the political democracy and social stability of the region. He was wrong. In the same year, before Chinese President Jiang Zemin's
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), however, agrees with two points made by Roth. In a speech he made on Jan. 1, Roth said Taipei and Beijing did not understand each other. Beijing has deliberately circumvented Chen to deal directly with Taiwan's opposition parties and business community. This was a serious mistake, Roth said. Roth believed that Taipei had failed to fully understand the importance of cross-strait relations to Beijing and that Taipei also erroneously thought that the benefits to Beijing from economic interaction across the Strait outweighed the political divisions. Roth used the "small three links" (小三通) as an example, explaining that before Taipei complies with the "one China" principle, Beijing is unlikely to cooperate to any greater extent. Taipei does not entirely agree with Roth on this point .
Now that Roth is out of office, the two US policies toward Taiwan that he had helped to formulate continue to take their toll. Last March, Roth suggested that the two sides of the Strait should adopt some innovative thinking, enter into an interim agreement and adopt some measures showing mutual trust on issues over which the two sides are divided. The issue of Theater Missile Defense, for example, could be included as a topic of discussion in cross-strait dialogue, he said. Roth's suggestion was unlike the "interim agreement" proposed by Kenneth Lieberthal, former senior director for Asian affairs on the National Security Council and assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs. As Lieberthal's proposal did not pre-suppose "Chinese unification" as a necessary outcome, Taipei was naturally much happier with it.
Chen has agreed that the "interim agreement" is a short-term goal in the long process of cross-strait reconciliation, rather than the agreement defining the ultimate status of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Former US president Bill Clinton had said that the agreement reached by Taipei and Beijing over the future of Taiwan must be made peacefully and with the consent of the Taiwanese people. An "interim agreement" would seem certainly to fall within such a scope.
A blind spot in the US policy however, is that Taiwan's future must be jointly decided by the two sides of the Strait without the use of force or the imposition of the will of one side over the other side. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said during his congressional approval hearings that the two sides must reach a peaceful resolution through a manner found acceptable by the people of both sides. This language was slightly different from that in Clinton's comments after China issued a white paper concerning Taiwan last February.
Chen obviously intended to clarify this discrepancy when he met with Roth. If the future of Taiwan is to be decided by the people of both sides of the Strait, then the verdict is out already. The futures of East Timor and Quebec were both decided by their respective residents, rather than by all the citizens of Indonesia and Canada. So Chen told Roth that Taiwan's future could not be decided by the people on the two sides of the Strait, but rather that the free will of the Taiwanese people must be respected.
US policy toward Taiwan is very confused. The US has sold Taiwan medium-range air-to-air missiles, yet it has also requested the missiles be left in the US for safe-keeping. It has even opposed a visit to the Marshall Islands, a country which has formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, by a naval flotilla from Taiwan. While these two decisions were made by low-ranking officials, if the mid- and high-ranking officials do not intercede in time, the basis of mutual trust between the US and Taiwan will be severely damaged. Taiwan remains most concerned, however, about the US' attitude toward cross-strait relations. The US' decision on arms sales to Taiwan in April will be an important indicator of that attitude.
Lin Cheng-yi is a research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies of the Academica Sinica.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US