It is hard to miss the central theme of the US President George W. Bush's inaugural speech for his second term -- to help oppressed people fight tyranny. This speech -- with the words "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy" running throughout the text -- of course highlight some very fundamental and lofty US ideals.
The people of Taiwan are focused on how this policy declaration will play out over the next four years in the context of the triangular relationship between the US, China and Taiwan. However, looking back at this very unique relationship over the four years, it is not hard to notice that these ideals -- however lofty they may be -- face some very strenuous challenges from self-interest and pragmatism.
After Bush gave his inauguration speech, commentators were quick to point out some of the US' important allies and partners are guilty of precisely the crimes that Bush has vowed to end. To Taiwan, the most important case in point is of course China -- an authoritarian state notorious for oppressing human rights.
Despite being the world's most powerful country, the US needs the friendship of Beijing and its helping hand, in particular in dealing with North Korea. While it cannot be denied that the US has consistently expressed concern to China about its human rights record, the real question is: What can the US do about it? Actually, a better question is: What does it intend to do about it?
At this point, the answer is nothing -- at least nothing meaningful.
While it is understandable that there is only so much the US can do about domestic human rights issues of China, its handling of the so-called Taiwan issue is less understandable.
If it is so important to help oppressed peoples leave tyranny behind, isn't it even more important help free people resist subjection to tyranny? The latter scenario would precisely be what happens to Taiwan if unification with China occurs.
Looking back at the US-Taiwan relationship over the past four years, most would agree that the biggest tension between the two countries occurred over Taiwan's plan to rewrite its constitution and Taiwan's holding of referendums. Both matters -- the campaign for a new constitution and the holding of referendums -- reflect the coming of age for a democratic Taiwan. Under the circumstances, a better way to depict the situation is this -- the US felt unnerved and uneasy by the reaching of major democratic milestones in Taiwan. This is of course highly ironic.
Not so long ago, Taiwan was still seen as a prodigy of democratic reform, for which the US felt very proud of. Despite the fact that the democratic development of Taiwan was encouraged by the US, limits were apparently drawn on how far these developments can go. The limit is that the "status quo" must be maintained.
However, is it possible to maintain the status quo? Is it even possible to define the status quo? Does status quo mean the status quo more than fifty years ago when the World War II first ended, or when the Chinese Nationalist Party government first took refuge in Taiwan? Can the status quo be maintained when China has evolved from its status as a third world country that closed the door on the world, into a rising power that poses serious challenges to the US' world leadership?
Frankly speaking, despite the ups and downs in the relationship between Taiwan and the US over these past four years, the Bush administration has nevertheless demonstrated unprecedented friendliness toward Taiwan. However, that friendliness has thus far not gone nearly as far as the people of Taiwan have hoped.
It is hoped that in the next four years, Bush will live up to the promises he made in his inauguration speech, especially when it comes to the US' handling of the cross-strait relationship.
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