US President George W. Bush has already completed his visit to China. There was neither a fourth communique nor a restatement of the "three no's." During his visit, Bush repeatedly stressed the Taiwan Relations Act, regarding Taiwan as a friend of the US, and stated the view that cross-strait negotiations should be held and problems resolved peacefully. With this, Taiwan heaved a sigh of relief, and the authorities may boast of their achievements.
But Taipei cannot interpret problems by adopting only viewpoints beneficial to itself. In cross-strait relations, despite their moral and spiritual sympathy toward Taipei, Bush and others dare not completely ignore Beijing's stance. "One China" is still US policy. Three communiques and one law still comprise the standard for the US policy toward Taiwan and China. Of course, Bush's comment that there must be no provocation across the Strait applies to Taiwan, too. Taipei absolutely must not rely on the notion that it can rest easy because it has strong backing.
Actually, Taipei doesn't need to pat itself on the back just because Bush is friendly toward it. But there is also no need to resent former US president Bill Clinton for insufficient friendliness. The Bush government is still in the process of experimenting, adjusting and learning. In the end, it will swing back to the center -- where US national interests really lie. Bluntly put, the US' China policy still aims to prevent unification, independence, war and discord across the Strait. It also aims to keep Taiwan and contain China. China and Taiwan can have contact and resume talks, but it must be under US supervision and guidance.
In terms of how to move beyond the present situation, this writer proposes both passive and active approaches. As for the former, in its international relations, Taipei shouldn't force other countries to choose between China and Taiwan, because the victim in such cases is usually Taiwan. In terms of its relationship with China, Taipei mustn't put the so-called "Taiwan question" on the agenda too soon. This, too, would not be beneficial to Taiwan. In relations with the US, Taiwan must not excessively exploit the conflict between the US administration and Congress, or seek to damage US-China relations. This will likewise cause Taiwan to become the victim in the end.
Even more importantly, Taiwan should consider adopting a more proactive attitude and approach in dealing with the cross-strait predicament. Internationally, Taiwan must ensure that it stands on the side of reason (even though China has the advantage of might.) In cross-strait relations, if Taiwan hides, stalls or flees, it won't be able to resolve any problems. On the contrary, it would be better to adopt a forward-looking, aggressive and offensive tack. In its relations with the US, Taiwan can even consider helping improve relations between the US and China under the premise that its interests will not be compromised in the process.
More specifically, while Taiwan can oppose "one country, two systems" and refuse to accept the regime of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it can also stress the need for a China that is free, democratic and unified -- and one with an equal distribution of wealth. Taiwan can resolve to be responsible for China's future and make it clear that Taiwan is not part of a foreign power blockade or a tool being used to restrict China's future development.
Language must be mild and actions careful. The vision should be broad, but actions must be small. While refusing to give the CCP an excuse to take action against Taiwan, Taiwan must position itself strategically such that it can act both offensively and defensively. Adopting this sort of position would only benefit Taiwan.
Similarly, the US hopes that China will continue with its reforms and adopt a milder, more reasonable tone. In Bush's words, the US wants to see a stable, prosperous and neighborly China. This line taken by the White House is actually consistent with US, Taiwan and global interests -- and of course the long-term interests of Chinese-speaking peoples. By using its development experience and status as a part of greater Chinese culture, Taiwan can play a definite role in assisting Beijing to accept international standards of conduct and blend into the international community. Think about how much Taiwan could benefit politically and economically from such an effort -- only by doing so can everybody win.
Being someone else's pawn is no solution. To find contentment in this role would truly be a sign of moral bankruptcy.
George W. Tsai is a research fellow at the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Scudder Smith
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers