A few days ago, US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who is in charge of Asia-Pacific affairs, offered rare, strident and straight forward criticism of China's political, military and economic strategies and system, and he entreated China to turn toward democracy. News reports called it "maybe the bluntest statement about China's one-party dictatorship made by the Bush administration."
In order to co-opt Beijing, the US State Department has for many years described US-Chinese relations in smooth diplomatic language. But this can easily be misunderstood by the outside world and make Beijing think that it has succeeded with its cheating and tricks. It could also give the outside world the wrong idea about China's "peaceful" rising.
The change in the US' attitude can in fact already be seen in the recent cancellation of Chinese President Hu Jintao's (
Only such a blunt approach will put pressure on China. Trade or money cannot be used to eliminate problems resulting from a difference in values, or force the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to improve its human-rights record and initiate political reform.
In response to Zoellick's criticism, foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang (
At a meeting with some of the participants to the 22nd Congress on the Law of the World in Beijing on Sept. 5, Hu said that, "we will continue to develop socialist democracy, perfect a democratic system, enrich the democratic form and guarantee that democratic elections, democratic decisions, democratic management and democratic supervision are implemented in accordance with the law."
He managed to cram seven references to democracy into one short sentence. So how come less than three weeks later he has given up on democracy and is doing all he can to protect the one-party dictatorship? Does he feel that since he can't bluff the US, there is no longer a need to sing the praises of democracy?
Although the US has seen through the dictatorial qualities innate to the CCP, it still seems to lack an understanding of Taiwan's domestic issues. This has an impact on finding solutions to the cross-strait issue. For example, the US thinks that the reason the arms-procurement bill still has not passed is because the government and opposition are colluding to avoid Taiwan's responsibilities, when the fundamental issue is that Taiwan's democratic institutions are still weak.
This problem includes dictatorial pressures from China and attempts to restore the old party-state system in Taiwan. To achieve this, some people do not shrink from leaning on the CCP's one-party dictatorship for support, making them the source of cross-strait disaster.
When former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) declared that he would join hands with the CCP to control Taiwan, he finally gave the game away. To manage this, the KMT has to suck up to China and treat the US as its enemy. The KMT is also doing all it can to upset relations between Taiwan and the US.
It cannot be denied that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lacks experience in government, including experience managing Taiwan's relationship with the US, and that when things are going well, it forgets itself and upsets the US. This, however, is a completely different issue than the problem with opposition politicians befriending the CCP and opposing the US.
Following Taiwan's presidential election last year, the New York Times organized a symposium. I highlighted the importance of relations between Taiwan and the US and said that if Taiwan is forced to seek help, it can only be from a democratic US and never the CCP's communist dictatorship. This so upset an American-Taiwanese academic who claimed to be friends with Lien that he began to recount how unreliable past US presidents had been and how they had betrayed Taiwan.
In February, this gentleman organized the world's first meeting in support of Lien staying on as KMT chairman, although he met with some opposition from some KMT members on the east coast of the US. Indeed, when it comes to the arms purchase, some pan-blue politicians have shown more flexibility than Lien. Unfortunately, they do not have the necessary vision and bravery, and as a result Taiwan's political situation continues to tread water, wasting valuable time. This also delays Taiwan's development toward becoming a normal democratic state.
KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
If Soong uses the arms bill and the year-end elections to blackmail Ma and Wang, will they then place the nation first, or will they look to individual and party interests and join the blue-turned-red anti-US ranks?
US policy toward Taiwan is not without problems, but it is definitely not a matter of betraying Taiwan. Rather, it is a matter of misunderstanding China and of pragmatic needs. If it really were betraying Taiwan, where would Taiwan be today? Some of those who so forcefully oppose the US and the arms bill are in fact trying to be China's supporters and attempting to change the status quo. That is something we must all be aware of.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
RSS