When US President George W. Bush made a speech on Nov. 15 in Kyoto, Japan, it may have been the first time that a sitting US president formally endorsed Taiwan's democracy. But the real surprise came when he used the phrase: "controlling their own lives and their future."
There is no doubt that the Taiwanese people are controlling their own lives now. However, to be the masters of their own future, the Taiwanese people have to know that Taiwan's democratization will continue uninterrupted.
That would translate into formal sovereignty. Formal sovereignty remains the only way to guarantee Taiwan's democracy in the face of China's territorial ambitions.
Bush also cited the US "belief that there should be no unilateral attempts to change the status quo by either side," as if the Taiwanese people should be satisfied with de facto independence.
He overlooked the fact that, without formal sovereignty, Taiwan is having a hard time defending its "status quo" as a de facto independent democracy.
China's passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law and the formation of the alliance between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) highlights why Taiwan needs formal independence.
Prior to that, the train of Taiwan's democratization had been chugging along, even with the constraint of the US "one China" policy.
But China's promulgation of the law and the advent of the KMT-CCP alliance exposed to all how vulnerable Taiwan's democracy is without formal sovereignty. Without formal sovereignty, no country in the world except the US will dare to raise its voice against China's missiles on Taiwan's behalf.
Worse, without formal sovereignty Taiwan cannot declare that China is an enemy country, though it clearly is given the "Anti-Secession" Law's ultimatum on the forceful annexation of Taiwan.
After the law was passed, instead of evacuating Taiwanese citizens from China, Taiwan's government was powerless to stop pan-blue camp leaders from flocking to Beijing to pledge their allegiance. And the government cannot prosecute them for collaborating with Taiwan's enemy.
Worse, Taiwan cannot restrain Beijing's agents -- who now masquerade as Taiwanese legislators -- from advancing China's agenda.
The turncoats who currently dominate the legislature are attempting to legitimize China's aggression, with the eventual goal of legislating the surrender of Taiwan's democracy to the despots in Beijing.
So far they have succeeded in blocking the special arms procurement bill, representing a unilateral disarmament by Taiwan in the face of a rising military threat from China. They are also trying to choke off funding for the Mainland Affairs Council.
Without formal sovereignty, Taiwan cannot curb the excesses of the pro-China media in Taiwan, despite their ongoing disinformation campaigns.
Without formal sovereignty, the Taiwanese people have lost much of their psychological defense against the nation's most belligerent enemy. Without such sovereignty, Taiwan's democracy is always just one presidential election away from extinction.
Conversely, formal sovereignty would have many positive effects.
For one thing, the perennial war to decide Taiwan's fate -- which is being fought primarily in Taiwan's political arena and between the Taiwanese people on one side and Beijing's cohorts in Taiwan on the other -- would be over. Taiwan's democracy would have emerged the victor.
The nation would have constructed a new and complete constitution to provide its democracy with a solid foundation. Taiwan's internal polarization would have ceased, making possible a loyal opposition.
Meanwhile, the politics of checks and balances would replace that of hate and animosity. Taiwan would embark on a program to fortify its military defense with an eye to deter any potential threat to its hard-earned democracy.
Taiwan would be able to enter into formal military alliances with the US and Japan, strengthening its security.
Taiwan would become a beacon of democracy and an anchor for the chain of East Asia's free societies.
China would have no choice but to make peace with Taiwan, to assure the US and the rest of the world that its "peaceful rise" is sincere, rather than just a catchphrase invented to mollify its neighbors. This would be in China's interests, by guaranteeing its eventual ascent to the status of an economic superpower.
If Bush truly valued Taiwan's democracy and recognized its role in maintaining stability in the region, he would have no alternative but to support Taiwan's formal sovereignty -- and so would the rest of the world.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers