In an interview on US public television on Dec. 10, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said the greatest obstacle in US-China relations was Taiwan, emphasizing that according to the Taiwan Relations Act, America is not obliged to defend Taiwan. A fortnight later his words were being dissected in the Taiwanese media, taken as proof that relations between Taiwan and the US were at an all-time low. Some people were even saying they were non-existent.
Some of the Taiwanese media, and a number of politicians, were even proclaiming that the weapons-procurement plan should be halted in protest. These people are not in full possession of the facts. US policy regarding the Taiwan Strait opposes moves toward independence or the use of force, and it also, rather selfishly, seeks to define the nature of the "status quo." This is the hard truth of the matter, and regardless of how things develop, it will be the hard and fast principle for the short term.
This so-called "landmine" issue has been contorted in the press and by politicians in Taiwan, who've said that it brands Taiwan a troublemaker.
In fact, it is quite apparent that Taiwan plays such a role in US-China relations. Ever since 1950, exchanges between the US and China, both official and unofficial, have revolved around the issue of Taiwan. Taiwan is, for China, a matter of "core interests," and the US has not been able to get past these core interests with either the Mutual Defense Treaty or the Taiwan Relations Act. This is why the Taiwan issue is brought up in every summit meeting between the leaders of these two countries. If the US had more room for compromise with Taiwan, as in the case of independence for Xinjiang, then it would not constitute such a potential "landmine."
The question of the US' obligation to defend Taiwan has been discussed countless times before. According to the Taiwan Relations Act, the US can define the nature of its obligations to defend Taiwan. The US has said on many occasions that it does not welcome any changes in the status quo by either party, and therefore if a conflict arises due to a declaration of independence on Taiwan's part, then the US naturally has no obligation to come to its defense.
Armitage is correct when he says that Congress has the right to decide whether to commit to major conflict in the Taiwan Strait: According to the War Powers Resolution, the US president can only use the armed forces for 48 hours before he has to seek the approval of Congress.
There is nothing particularly new or untoward in what Armitage has said here, he is merely spelling out US policy in everyday language, a policy which took shape in the 1950s and has remained the same ever since. To see his words as an indication of a worsening of US-Taiwan relations does not tally with the facts. In fact, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) has just signed a 99-year lease for a new site, and has decided to increase its staff in Taiwan to "improve administrative efficiency." This is a good indication of the increasing importance of the Taiwan issue in the eyes of the US.
Whilst Armitage's words are no cause for concern, AIT's increased activity in Taiwan is no reason for complacency, either. US policy regarding Taiwan has remained consistent ever since US President George W. Bush took office: that of not wanting either a declaration of independence or the use of force.
The president of Taiwan does not need to cause a panic at every whiff of a nuance blowing over from the US, but neither should pro-independence groups fantasize that the US will come running to help if Taiwan is attacked after having declared independence.
Lee Tuo-tzu is a Master's student at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry