After the summit meeting between US President George W. Bush and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
Bush also said that the US opposes any unilateral change to the status quo, regardless of whether it is China or Taiwan that attempts to change it, and that the recent words and action of the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may have decided to make changes unilaterally, which is something that the US opposes.
Bush's words immediately made waves in Taiwan's political circles. All sorts of declarations and comments were released by the pan-blue and the pro-China camps, all severely criticizing the so-called irresponsibility of President Chen Shui-bian's (
Some members of the media went hysterical, saying "do not let an election destroy the future of Taiwan," and deliberately spreading a sense of fear that we are at the brink of war and destruction.
It cannot be denied that Bush's words revealed suspicion on the part of the US government toward the Chen government's intention to hold a defensive public referendum on March 20.
The concern is apparently that the move could lead to a change in the status quo, triggering tension in the Taiwan Strait as a result.
Bush's statement can be characterized as very harsh, coming from someone who could be the most Taiwan-friendly president since the end of the formal diplomatic relationship between the two countries.
However, if we carefully analyze the recent words of Bush and US officials, without taking words out of context and without overinterpreting, this conclusion is inevitable: no matter how the US may change its wording, the core of its cross-strait policy continues to be opposition to unilateral change. Despite different packaging, the US' cross-strait policy has never departed from the core spirit and substance of the Three Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act, the "one China" policy and the principle of "peaceful resolution."
In a nutshell, the point is to "maintain the status quo." In this spirit, though the US may have recognized Beijing as the sole legitimate government of China, and severed its diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, it merely acknowledges China's position that "Taiwan is part of China," but does not recognize that position as truth.
In other words, while the US understands China's position, it has given neither its approval nor agreement.
Moreover, the US' Taiwan Relations Act requires that its government assist Taiwan in defense. The US government therefore sells defensive arms to Taiwan based on this.
All this demonstrates the spirit of a policy to "maintain the status quo."
Still, since the substance of the US' cross-strait policy is to "maintain the status quo," and the theme of the defensive public referendum that Taiwan intends to hold is to "oppose Chinese missiles and demand peace," which is the equivalent of maintaining the status quo, it is very surprising that the US government has not expressed support of the referendum.
It is even more surprising to see so much skepticism from the US about the enactment of the Referendum Law (
Frankly speaking, this US attitude is attributable to the Taiwanese government's failure to communicate sufficiently with the US and to the pro-China speeches made by some political parties and members of the media in Taiwan, as well as to China's deception.
As a result, the US mistook a measure that Taiwan is taking in self-defense as an attempt to change the status quo.
Taiwan is a sovereign independent country, and interference in its internal affairs by outsiders is not permissible. However, the US-Taiwan relationship is a special case. The two countries go back a long way and have gone through many crises together. The US is obligated to assist in Taiwan's self-defense under the Taiwan Relations Act. The cultural and economic exchanges between the two sides have been intensive.
Therefore, major cross-strait policy declarations and drafting of laws by Taiwan should be preceded by intimate discussions with the US, so as to attain a mutual understanding between the two sides and to ensure that policy directions are in the interests of both.
However, policy declarations by the Chen government, from "one country on each side (of the Taiwan Strait)," to "enacting a new constitution through a public referendum" to "defensive public referendum," which all strengthen Taiwan's democracy and sovereignty, were obviously not communicated to Taiwan's most important ally -- the US -- beforehand.
As a result, after the policies were announced, the US could not immediately grasp the substance of the matters. The deception and exaggeration by some politicians and commentators furthered the misleading impression that Taiwan is a troublemaker that goes out of its way to provoke China.
The US' cross-strait policy -- which is to "maintain the status quo" -- remains unchanged. While the US may have said some harsh things toward Chen, it has been right to the point with China as well, reiterating that if China used force against Taiwan, the US would not stay out of it.
The most important way that Taiwan can respond is not, as suggested by some members of the media and some politicians, to scrap the defensive public referendum, but rather to declare and publicize to the US and the international community that China has deployed 496 missiles on the other side of the Taiwan Strait, and that China continues to refuse to denounce the use of force against Taiwan.
Holding a public referendum in Taiwan is a way to express popular will against military threats.
The intention was never to change the status quo but to maintain the status quo. Isn't it odd to see robbers who threaten others with knives and guns as upholding the "status quo," while those asking the thugs to put down their knives are branded as "provoking" and "disrupting" the "status quo?"
In the US-China-Taiwan relationship, if power and muscle were the only things that mattered, and right and wrong made no difference, Taiwan's situation would of course be very difficult. However, we must remind the US that their country was founded in the spirit of respect for human rights, freedom and democracy. This is not to mention that all states of the US have referendum laws as well.
Even the US Congress has passed a resolution expressing respect for the Taiwanese people's right to decide their own future.
We don't understand why a little pressure from China is enough to make the US forget the spirit of its founders.
In particular, every battle fought by the US since the country was established has been to defend this principle and spirit. The US cannot sink to working with a notorious bully in oppressing a newly democratic country.
Wen has told the US that even if China had as much power as the US, it would never threaten other countries. Yet the truth is that after China gained some power, it began to crack down on and bully its neighbors. The US must not be deceived by China's campaign of sweet talk and propaganda.
The US should support Taiwan's defensive referendum and condemn China's missile deployment, so as to live up to its own founding spirit and its cross-strait policy, and to ensure real peace across the Taiwan Strait.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath