Most people sincerely desire peace and real sovereignty in the Taiwan Strait, so it is unfortunate that the attainment of these goals is fraught with problems. They have cast a shadow over the nation's political prospects and have caused insecurity in society.
In past decades, Taiwan's government depended heavily on US protection, and in the last few years there has been a political shift to the right. An example is the proposed NT$610.8 billion arms procurement budget, which is intended to please certain elements of the US right and would be financed by selling state-owned land and issuing state stocks and bonds.
Sadly, the debt and the shame that we will bequeath our children as a result will not bring Taiwan security in exchange. Instead, the arms procurement might push Taiwan to the eruption point. What needs to be done?
The rally to protest the arms sale and to demand a referendum on June 19 called on the country to put aside the feud between green and blue and to transcend ethnic divisions in order to reflect on the government's mentality.
In recent decades, has the government's thinking been right or wrong? Is there another path apart from this shift to the right and reliance on US military might, and its supposed alternative, dancing to China's tune and accepting the "one country, two systems" formula?
Maybe we can start from scratch, exercising our creative thinking and exploring a third option. As a spur to more helpful discussion, I hope here to clarify the issue and offer a third possibility.
In recent years, the US has been at the center of Taiwan's strategic concerns, and the two sides of the Strait have been polarized due to their different stands on the issues of unification and independence. It seems that we have no choice but to let the US mediate to protect Taiwan, and must accept that it benefits itself in the process.
Yet is it possible to revamp our strategy by exercising our political wisdom to strike a balance between the two superpowers? Is it possible for Taiwan to transform itself into a buffer state between the US and China?
In the future, the contradictions and competition between the US and China will only be aggravated. There are two reasons for China's vehement opposition to Taiwan independence: first, the nationalist chauvinism of Chinese is still deeply rooted.
Second, China is worried that Taiwan might become the US' vassal state and China's adversary once it achieves independence.
If we only hear China's saber-rattling or listen to its standard line of "never abandon the use of force against Taiwan," we will only be filled with indignation and forget to analyze the reasons behind China's intimidation. Eventually, we will be forced into war with China and thousands of lives will be sacrificed.
Besides, given Taiwan's current attitude, China has little choice but to repeatedly resort to threats of force. The cross-strait standoff is not a quarrel between two individuals, but a conflict between two nations. When individuals quarrel, the weak can stand up against the strong and display his courage. In case of a national conflict, however, we need to be concerned not only for our personal safety but for innumerable other lives -- especially the precious lives of the young.
To seriously face China's obstinance in opposing Taiwan's independence is not an act of cowardice. Indeed, only by facing up to China's mentality can a resolution be found. For Taiwan, China's national chauvinism leaves little leeway, leaving Taiwan to turn to the US for protection. For China, on the other hand, it is Taiwan's attachment to US imperialism that entrenches China's national chauvinism.
As for China's chauvinism, there is little we can do about it. Our hope rests on the effect of time, and we expect the structural changes of China's economy and society will help break up the force of this chauvinism. What we can do, however, is to calm China's worries that Taiwan is a friend of the US and an enemy of China.
Maybe we can offer a deal of maintaining the status quo for 30 or even 50 years. Within three decades, Taiwan can work to develop itself as a "permanently neutral state" -- proposing arms reductions as a prerequisite for normal economic and cultural exchanges across the Strait, but still holding out the probability of unification with China after three decades. After the three decades, Taiwan can determine whether to establish a neutral state or to unite with China.
In the meantime, Taiwan can afford large investments in social reconstruction due to its arms reductions and withdrawal from the arms race. And then there might be the first time of peace and prosperity in Taiwan since the immigration of Han Chinese 200 years ago.
During the three decades, the nation can dedicate itself to nurturing society and democracy. On the diplomatic front, it can contribute to efforts to promote world peace. On the domestic front, the respective supporters of unification and independence will not be polarized by their different historical backgrounds, because the controversy would be left for the next generation to settle.
Moreover, if the ideal of the "neutral state" replaces the zeal for Taiwanese independence tinged by right-wing ideology, the animosity between nationalists and separatists will be subdued, and ethnic conflicts will gradually come to an end. Only in such an atmosphere can a consensus be achieved so that energy can be freed for use on social and democratic development, promoting social vitality.
In the international arena, Taiwan will find it easier to fight for a place in international organizations under the name of an "interim Taiwan." Because the ideal of the "neutral state" helps to promote world peace, it would be easier to win the support of peace-loving people in the international community. Gradually, China's liberals might be won over as well.
In contrast to Taiwan's current situation, where we are diplomatically in the pocket of the US rightists and openly endorse the US' illegitimate Iraq invasion, the position of a neutral state will help establish an international image of Taiwan as a peace-loving country and thus create more room for Taiwan's existence in the international community.
The aforementioned proposal is far from perfect, but it sets out to explore a third way of thinking. Compared with Taiwan's current stance close to the the US right wing, the ideal of the "neutral state" offers more ways to escape the cross-strait impasse. A cross-strait war must be averted, as its cost in young lives would be much higher than any grand political ideal is worth. The rally on June 19 aimed to create an opportunity to form a public forum through referendum. We hope to attract more people of insight to exercise their creative thinking to seek a way out of the nation's current plight, and to transform Taiwan from Asia's powder keg to a beacon of peace.
Huang Wu-hsiung is a mathematics professor retired from National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY WANG HSIAO-WEN
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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