The last month has been a succinct demonstration that the US policy toward Taiwan is in shambles. We have seen the Department of Defense confirm that starting next year US military attaches will be posted at the American Institute in Taiwan. It is also a matter of perhaps not so common knowledge that relations between the US military establishment and its Taiwanese counterpart are the best they have been for 20 years -- so far so good.
Compare this to the State Department's behavior: "O what a falling off was there," to quote Hamlet. November saw US Secretary of State Colin Powell, that sorry wreck of a once principled man, trying to buy China's help over the North Korean nuclear program by denigrating Taiwan's status, in absolute contradiction of both international law and 30 years of US policy. Then there was the furor over Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's statements.
Taiwan has whipped itself into a frenzy over the perfectly obvious, while the real viciousness of Armitage's statement has been ignored. Alarmingly, when prompted to name a "landmine" in US-China relations, Armitage named Taiwan. Yet isn't this obvious? China wants Taiwan, the US doesn't want China to have Taiwan. Taiwan is therefore a source of conflict between the two -- and this has nothing to do with anything Taiwan does.
Some find it appalling to learn that the US is not committed under the Taiwan Relations Act to defend Taiwan in the event of an attack. Since the TRA was passed in 1978, one would think that Taiwan's punditry and politicians would have got around to reading it over the last 26 years. But nobody ever bothers, and as a result the TRA has become like the Magna Carta -- notable for what people think it's about, rather than what it actually says.
Armitage's remarks concerning US intervention in case of China's attack being decided by Congress were a sleight of hand. Actually, it is up to the president under the War Powers Act, and Congressional approval only comes two to three months down the line. On the other hand, Congress has always been far more supportive of Taiwan than the White House.
If there was a time Taiwan should have raised its voice over Armitage's remarks, it was over his highly offensive "We all agree that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China." Who is this "we?" The US has never agreed that there was only one China. At best it has said that since the two sides of the Strait agreed there was only one China it would not challenge that position. After breaking relations with Taiwan, it "recognized" Beijing as the sole government of China but only "acknowledged" that Beijing claimed Taiwan. Acknowledgement does not mean approval or agreement. It is simply a statement that one understands the other side's position, not that one supports it.
Challenging Armitage on the "we" was the first thing TECRO should have done after the PBS broadcast -- otherwise what do we have diplomats for? Amazingly, this has still gone uncommented on in Taiwan.
Armitage's remarks could only be understood as saying everyone agrees that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. This is of course untrue; also in no way does it reflect US government policy. Here Taiwan should have kicked up a stink, but the amateurishness of its political class is such that it doesn't even realize the difference between speaking the truth and real harm to its interests.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under