One of the greatest contradictions in Washington's policy toward Taiwan is that it has interfered in elections consistently to the benefit of the pan-blue camp, despite its strategic interests lying unequivocally with the pan-green camp. US President George W. Bush's condemnation of Chen Shui-bian (
It appears that Washington strategists decided that its criticism came too early, so in December they waited until the last minute to play their spoiler. This time, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli condemned Chen's plans to change the name of Taiwan's offices abroad, a proposal which had been a highlight of the last week of Chen's election campaign.
On this occasion Washington was more successful: The pan-greens failed to win a predicted majority of seats in the legislature. Given that the principal concern of the Bush administration is, and has been for some time, that Taiwan pass the NT$480 billion (US$15.13 billion) special arms budget, which the pan-blue camp has resolutely opposed, Washington clearly scored a spectacular own goal.
There is little glee in finger-pointing. The concern now is to undo the damage that has been done to the interests of both Taiwan and the US. But how?
Purely domestic solutions have been tried and so far have failed. The so-called agreement between Chen and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
It had been hoped that the sheer outrageousness of Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law last month would shame the pan-blue camp into giving the arms budget the nod. Instead, they have refused to let the budget bill advance to the committee stage in the legislature on three occasions.
Meanwhile, the KMT continues to court Beijing. KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
As usual, some in the US have been blaming Chen for not "pushing" the issue far enough. This is plainly ridiculous: Putting the budget to the legislature three times in one month can hardly be called dilatory. The truth is that the government has done all it can and is at the point of recognizing that there can be no movement on this issue while Lien remains KMT chairman, which means no movement until August at the earliest.
Domestic solutions have failed. It is now up to Washington to exert pressure from afar. As to how this can be done, let us remind our American friends that the interests of the pan-blue leaders and legislators in the US are extensive, and comings and goings across the Pacific frequent. The obvious solution is to deny entry to the US to those who would frustrate US policy -- until they see the error of their ways. A refused visa here, a refused entry there -- it can be subtle yet pointed, and it will definitely hurt. And in a post-Sept. 11 security climate, no explanation need be given.
The arms budget has to pass. It's time to apply the thumbscrews.
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