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
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