In an interview with the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) on Dec. 10, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage caused strong concern in Taiwan by saying that the island is "probably the biggest landmine" in Washington's ties with Beijing. But this view is not important. What matters is the fact that Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, whose strategic significance is shown when it comes to whether it is independent, what country it belongs to or leans toward.
According to Armitage, if China really attacks Taiwan by force, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA,
The core of Armitage's unfriendly remarks was: "we all agree that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China." This is a continuance of the remarks made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell during his visit to Beijing in October, who said that "there is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation."
Their words were neither slips of the tongue nor gifts for China before their retirement. This is because the US' cross-strait policy is leaning toward China. But the above remarks contradict the Sino-US Joint Communique, signed in 1972 in Shanghai, which states that the US merely "acknowledges," instead of "agrees," that there is but one China [and Taiwan is part of China]. Nor do they tally with Taiwan's status as defined in the TRA. Obviously, the US is pressuring Taiwan due to worries that it is rapidly heading toward independence.
While the US is pressuring Taiwan, we also see its growing military deployment specifically targeting China, gradually taking it as a dangerous enemy. This phenomenon can be shown as follows:
The US has already stationed about 300,000 soldiers from its four services -- including the Marines -- across the Pacific region. Moreover, in light of the speedy nature of modern warfare today, the US Pacific Command headquarters confirmed in late December that the Joint Task Force (JTF)-519 was formed about five years ago to improve its military mobility in the Taiwan Strait. Washington is apparently warning Beijing by revealing the information at this moment.
Next, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) announced that the US will station an active-duty military officer there for the first time since 1979, when it severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Washington said the reason was to improve administrative efficiency. The efficiency of an active-duty officer is certainly much better than that of a retired one. Washington has sensed that the cross-strait crisis is worse than ever. This has not only a diplomatic meaning, but also a strategic one.
The US recently warned the EU again not to remove its weapons embargo against China, or it will stop providing military technology to the union. Washington clearly and definitely pointed out that a lifting of the ban would endanger Taiwan. It also demanded that Israel keep its promise not to help China upgrade its attack ballistic missiles. Before this, it successfully stopped Israel from selling early-warning aircraft to China.
The Japanese media reported that, for the very first time, the US and Japan have agreed to take up China's military movement as a key issue in the two countries' ministerial-level security talks. US experts also pointed out that if Taiwan is occupied by China, it will be a significant blow to US-Japan security cooperation. Furthermore, some South Korean parliament members revealed that US troops stationed in their country will take necessary military action if tensions between China and Taiwan rise.
These examples all show that the US is dealing seriously with China's military threat against Taiwan, because both Washington and Taipei share the same fundamental interests. The problem is, Washington has not got itself out of the war in Iraq, so Taipei needs to understand the situation and cooperate strategically. On the other hand, Washington is unlikely to lean significantly toward Beijing, as it may not have sufficient grounds to pull away in the future, not to mention that a catastrophe may occur if it gives Beijing a wrong impression.
It should be very easy for Taiwan and the US to communicate with each other. After the new US administration is formed, Taipei has to send appropriate envoys who are not only trusted by Washington but also capable of expressing the island's true intention. It should bluntly tell Washington its thinking and bottom line in order to resolve unfavorable US policies, and stop misunderstandings that China can take advantage of.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHAN
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS