The "one China" policy is a tool that is being used to suppress Taiwan's aspirations for formal sovereignty, as well as its democracy. Unfortunately, the US government has often "assisted" at the most inopportune times.
For instance, late last year, the Taiwanese people were wary enough to install a pro-China pan-blue majority in the Legislative Yuan -- a result for which the US government's untimely anti-sovereignty remarks were at least partially responsible. Now, the US wants these pro-China legislators to let the China-deterring arms procurement bill pass -- an irony only Beijing would appreciate. However, for the US, this might be the first taste of how the "one China" policy can come in conflict with US strategic interests.
To be sure, the arms bill could still be passed eventually, but not on account of US pressure. Rather, it would be the pan-blue camp's utmost desire to regain control of the government so it could compel legislators to try to mollify Taiwanese voters.
As a pre-presidential election strategy, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will try to delude the public into believing that it cares about Taiwan's security. The KMT leadership is fully aware that the process of arms purchase takes years and will be controlled by the government that takes power in 2008.
The procurement plan could then be "revised" and the pan-blue camp's "grand" scheme of disarming Taiwan would proceed unmolested, if the KMT were to regain power. That's why the bill is destined to drag on as close to the presidential election as possible.
The public can expect to be fed a stream of lame excuses by the KMT in the coming months.
It's essential to understand that Taiwan's unilateral disarmament is the pan-blue camp leaders' "oath of loyalty" to join up with Beijing.
Meanwhile, these leaders in concert with Taiwan's pro-China media have been preaching to the people the impossibility of Taiwan's independence. Invariably they use the US' "one China" policy to back up their claims. At the same time, they are relentlessly planting the seeds of inevitability for "unification" instead.
Up until recently, positive factors, such as Taiwanese consciousness and identity, and the desirability of democracy and liberty, have dwarfed all of the negative ones. In fact, opinion polls showing how overwhelmingly the Taiwanese people are against "unification" -- have often been cited as evidence of the impossibility of Taiwan ever succumbing to China.
But, pan-blue camp leaders' incessant exploitation of the US' "one China" policy -- which reached a crescendo when former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
In other words, while Taiwan should be on high alert to guard against "unification by stealth," the Taiwanese people might be dangerously close to their most apathetic. Should the collaboration of pan-blue camp leaders with Beijing succeed in bringing about a takeover by stealth of Taiwan by China, the US' "one China" policy would have at least contributed in terms of creating an amicable environment. In light of this, the US government's standard practice of "hands off Taiwan-China discussions, as well as resolution of Taiwan's status as long as no violence is involved" appears to be unrealistic and deserves a thorough review.
Unfortunately, the "one China" policy also tends to discourage the US from educating its own people -- both government officials and the public alike -- ? to the fact that Taiwan is too important to the US to allow it to become part of China.
Therefore, the key to warding off the looming "unification by stealth" calamity -- as well as helping relieve the ongoing difficulties regarding arms purchases -- might be the US' open acknowledgement of Taiwan's long-term, vital strategic value. It would surprise few people if the US government then proceeded to recognize the need for changing or at least tweaking the "one China" policy. This could be done to safeguard against any form of "unification by stealth." Perhaps the US would also commit to formally recognizing the sovereign state of Taiwan in case of a Chinese attack, or in case a "unification" without the consent of the Taiwanese people is deemed unavoidable without this recognition.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past