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
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past