Regarding Bonnie Glaser's article ("Is a Chen-Hu Summit Desirable?" June 16, page 8), it is for the most part an uninspired rehash of the aspirations of business leaders on all sides to see an increase in commerce between Taiwan and China as so-called "initial steps" to "build trust" as a prelude to some resolution of the cross-strait situation.
Glaser suggests promoting economic ties as a means of defusing tensions. Of course, from a unificationist's standpoint, that is a good strategy. In fact, it is the preferred method of ensuring unification, as further entangling economic ties will make independence down the road that much more difficult, if not impossible.
The trouble with Glaser's approach, and the approach of a myriad other dreamers who hope earnestly for Taiwan to simply disappear into communist China's bosom, ending cross-strait tensions, and opening the way for exploitation without limit of China's vast untapped markets, is that the approach assumes the final solution will be unification.
That, of course, is dead wrong. No negotiation can ever take place in good faith if one party says "I won't talk to you unless you agree to my position in advance." That is, and has been communist China's position regarding talking to President Chen Shui-bian (
Communist dictatorships don't take chances on negotiations (or elections, or much else). Hong Kong is a good example. Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang (
To ensure victory in Tibet, China kidnapped the Panchen Lama, and replaced him with a communist puppet. To assure itself of support in countering Taiwan independence (including decidedly anti-democratic proclamations from French President Jacques Chirac), China has used economic blackmail against just about every country on earth, including the US. This being the case, Hu will never sit down with Chen in an unscripted discussion or negotiation. Only when the cards are in its favor, and China is assured of Taiwan's capture, will that happen.
As for Glaser's concluding comments, they are a despicable example of the lengths to which CSIS will go to promote China, despite it being a communist dictatorship. In her conclusion, Glaser suggests the US would love to see Taiwan unify with China, and that Washington "would welcome the elimination of the danger of a war in which it is likely to be involved, and in which US interests would almost certainly be adversely affected." This suggestion is wishful and abhorrent thinking, and is decidedly not Washington's current (or historical) thinking.
Glaser blithely expresses her high hopes for the demise of freedom for 23 million Taiwanese (there is no other possible outcome from "unification," to wit Hong Kong's farcical attempt at so-called "democracy"), as if she were describing ordering a salad.
I suggest that she should live as a communist for a while before suggesting that an entire nation, its history, culture, language, economy, democracy and children surrender to the single most brutal communist dictatorship in human history. Her views, and the views of CSIS, do not represent the majority view in the US, in particular the views of this writer.
I deplore the notion that my country would be willing to sacrifice Taiwan for a good night's sleep. That Glaser casually suggests this is true, and moreover, desirable, is morally reprehensible and indefensible.
Lee Long-hwa
United States
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