Following the recent resignation of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, US President George W. Bush appointed National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as Powell's successor. Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, will be replacing Rice. All signs point to members of the "Vulcans," Bush's foreign policy team during the 2000 presidential election campaign, directing foreign policy in his new cabinet. Yet decisionmakers such as conservative hawks Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still seem to view China as a strategic competitor. This looks positive for Taiwan. But are things really as they seem?
The most interesting thing is Hadley's appointment. Hadley was a lawyer, and during the 1970s he was a policy analyst in the defense department. He was later assistant secretary of defense during Bush senior's term in office, specializing in nuclear and conventional arms control issues.
In George W. Bush's first term, he made Hadley his deputy national security adviser hoping that Hadley, with his experience in arms control issues, would be able to explain the US missile defense plan to concerned countries. China is the greatest obstacle to the implementation of the US missile defense plan in the Asia-Pacific region, so Hadley should understand the strategic importance of Taiwan's geopolitical position. As a result, the new Bush government's strategic evaluation can be expected to lead to a deepening of security cooperation between Taiwan and the US, rather than to the abandonment of Taiwan.
There are possible compromises that could be made by realist members of the Vulcan group, based on consideration of actual international political benefits and interests. One example: although they are hoping for changes in the Pyongyang government, tough behavior might induce a Chinese reaction. This could seriously affect the region's strategic balance, so they might then take a softer, multilateral approach to handling the North Korean nuclear issue.
In the future, the new US government will face several new diplomatic challenges, such as the reconstruction of Iraq, the Israeli-Palestine situation following the death of Palestinian president Yasser Arafat and the North Korean nuclear issue. Doubtless they would be glad to see stability in the Taiwan Strait and the Asia-Pacific region so that they can concentrate on these other issues.
In particular, the US worries that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations and lead to terrorist attacks on US soil. Opposition to nuclear arms proliferation, therefore, is at the top of the US foreign policy agenda. Following this logic, China will become its most important partner when it comes to global non-terrorism and anti-proliferation efforts. Based on a realistic appraisal of the international political situation, the members of the Vulcan group will expand cooperation with China and downplay differences of opinion.
In other words, if the Vulcans want to see China as a diplomatic partner in the 21st century, it would be impossible for them to oppose Beijing over the question of Taiwan.
Based on Washington's objective of strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific region, stability in the Taiwan Strait will be an important pillar of US security, and Taiwan will be key in supporting this strategic balance. From this perspective, Bush's new team will not rashly abandon Taiwan, and the US is unwilling to tie any other issue to its arms sales to Taiwan.
But this support for Taiwan is not a blank check for Taiwan to use any which way. Although Bush didn't repeat the statements Powell made at a press conference in Beijing while meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (
In other words, the most important goal of US cross-strait policy is still to maintain the status quo, as defined by the US. If Taiwan's government continues to misjudge the international situation, and US statements lead them to believe that the storm following Powell's statement has blown over, it may continue to move toward independence by, for example, holding a Taiwan independence referendum, or amending the law to allow changing the national emblem. This may cause the situation in the Taiwan Strait to deteriorate and maybe even give rise to a fourth cross-strait crisis.
In future, it is possible that Washington will issue a fourth communique with Beijing, to avert a crisis and guarantee stability in the Taiwan Strait and in East Asia. A fourth communique could clearly state that Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty and that the US opposes Taiwan's independence, and even change the tactic of "pushing for dialogue" to "pushing for unification" in order to restrain Taiwan's actions. This could be even more harmful to Taiwan.
For the sake of its national interest, the most urgent task for Taiwan's government is to show restraint, strive for cross-strait stability, rebuild mutual trust between Taiwan and the US and put the US-Taiwan relationship back on track. This is the only way that the nation can continue to exist and develop.
Yu Pen-li is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of American Studies, Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US