President Chen Shui-bian's (
China's policy on cross-strait relations is "peaceful unification with no renunciation of the use of force against Taiwan." With this two-faced tactic, Beijing vows to handle the issue peacefully while not ruling out military action. It has established criteria according to which it might take such action. These include, for example, intervention by foreign powers, a declaration by Taiwan of independence, incorporation of the "special state-to-state" dictum into the Constitution and Taiwan's participation in the US Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system.
In other words, Beijing's cross-strait policy can be interpreted as a "won't-rule-out" dictum -- which treats "peaceful unification" as the principle while not excluding military action.
In fact, this "won't-rule-out" dictum is an obstacle to mutual trust between the two sides. Taiwanese, however, are unlikely to misinterpret China's cross-strait policy as centered around an invasion of Taiwan, although most Taiwanese are indeed irritated by the dictum.
Chen's remarks, in fact, should be interpreted in the same way, as the statement was actually Taiwan's own "won't-rule-out" dictum.
Chen does not want to push for Taiwan independence. But he does not rule out the possibility of deciding Taiwan's future by a referendum. Imagine: If China really uses force against Taiwan, will the country be capable of using force to defend itself? Of course it would. Otherwise, what are our national defenses for? If Taiwan is capable of defending itself by force, why can't it declare independence by means of a referendum?
Chen's words echo the spirit of the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD): "I won't declare independence if you don't attack Taiwan by force." They can also be interpreted as, "I will declare independence if you attack Taiwan by force." From a strategic perspective, such thinking is not wrong, and it tallies with Taiwan's interests. In other words, had it been properly handled, the statement might have annoyed China but would have been unlikely to cause any misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, however, Chen's rhetoric was clearly flawed. From the reaction to his remarks, it is clear that most media organizations -- both at home and abroad -- believe that Chen intended to declare Taiwan independence. As a result, his statement, essentially in line with national interests, has generated more problems than benefits for various reasons to do with diplomacy and international relations. Quite apart from the damage unwittingly done to cross-strait exchanges and other national interests, Chen may now find it difficult to shed the sobriquet "troublemaker" in the international community.
Cross-strait policy is a thorny issue. A wise politician would be cautious and express maximum goodwill, clearly understanding the bottom line of each side in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings that could lead to a major catastrophe. "Co-existence" and "prosperity" should be the watchwords.
It is incumbent upon Taiwan's ruling and opposition camps, as well as China, to interpret the "one country on each side" remark correctly. Chen's statement -- just like China's dictum not to rule out the use of force against Taiwan -- is the nation's bottom line.
Peace and prosperity across the Strait will continue if the two sides do not cross each other's bottom lines.
Lu Chi-yuan is a lecturer at Lunghwa University of Science and Technology.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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