Although I greatly admire former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), I have to question his assertion that "Taiwan has been an independent nation ... since May, 1, 1991 when I announced the abolishment of the Temporary Provisions Effective during the `Period of National Mobilization for the Suppression of the Communist Rebellion.'" ("Lee urges new approach to China threat," March 27, page 2)
The Republic of China came into being claiming to be the successor to the Qing Dynasty. The claim of the People's Republic of China that the dispute between the two governments is an internal Chinese affair appears reasonable on the surface. US policy has long been directed only at being even-handed and avoiding conflict. The US and other powers looking for excuses in the face of a Chinese attack on Taiwan could all too easily note that the undefended island called itself "China," that its Constitution was written to govern China, and that the people there had never spoken in a democratic vote recording their support for independence or their opposition to unification.
Many Americans remember all too well that Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) Republic of China was the first in a long and sordid series of quasi-fascist regimes supported by the US during the Cold War. Currently in the US, what may appear to be support for Taiwan's cause comes largely from conservatives, who have long supported Chiang's Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and who have spent 50 years verbally abusing the communist People's Republic. But if an attack should come, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a timely deal between Chinese Nationalist notables and their former opponents? And to expect the PRC, the KMT and the US to all blame the resort to violence on the irresponsible provocations of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) "unilaterally altering the status quo?"
The people of Taiwan may soon see that they have been very mistaken in thinking that their best hope for peace and democracy lay in incremental movements within a "status quo" that the US allows the People's Republic to define for them. It's been over nine years since former US president Bill Clinton, with strong support from the Republican-led Congress, sent the Seventh Fleet to protect Taiwan's first free presidential elections in 1996. Now the strategic situation has changed; America's military strength and its attention are focused elsewhere. And my fear has been growing that Taiwan's lack of strong democratic action in the intervening years may have sealed its fate.
But China's misguided "Anti-Secession" Law has brought Taiwan sympathetic opinion from around the world. I hope the opportunity will not be lost. If the people of Taiwan were to denounce the Chinese threat in a democratic referendum, if they were to create a constitution to govern their country in their own name, if they were to courageously declare their right to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station" of a "free and independent state," I can't imagine that we in the US could or would withhold our support.
Michael Falick
Colorado
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers