US harms itself when criticizing Taiwan

Let's begin with The Nelson Report, a daily newsletter on global affairs. On Feb. 2, editor Chris Nelson wrote that US President George W. Bush was again "furious" at President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The alleged criticism from Bush in the report was harsh, and was passed on to the reader as if Nelson had heard it in person. The report was considered sensational by many, yet it was taken as serious news and received a lot of attention in Taiwan. The purpose of this was to use the report to oppress Chen.

How much credibility does the report have? Heritage Foundation Research Fellow John Tkacik believes that its credibility is low, because Dennis Wilder, the US National Security Council's acting director for Asia, said in a White House meeting on the Taiwan issue on Feb. 4 that the US should treat Taiwan fairly. The pro-China official's remarks pointed out two things: first, Bush was not furious at Chen.

More importantly, Washington admitted that it has failed to handle cross-strait issues fairly. Indeed, due to the Middle East crisis, the US urgently needs Russia's and China's cooperation. So it oppresses Taiwan in order to achieve this goal. To be honest, this is not only unfair, but also undermines US interests in the long run.

US officials and think tanks have repeatedly emphasized the need to protect Taiwan in order to uphold its democracy. But is the US defending Taiwan from communist China just to uphold democracy? Not necessarily. In the era of martial law and the White Terror under the authoritarian rule of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), the US still made great efforts to protect Taiwan. Thus, democracy is only one of the US' concerns. It also has a greater strategic consideration: safeguarding its strategic deployment in the Pacific Ocean. Taiwan is a friendly ally that the US cannot afford to lose. But although the US has vowed to defend its national interests in this region, its strategic insights are questionable.

As Washington attacked Chen's proposal to abolish the National Unification Council and the unification guidelines, it did not criticize former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) or People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) after their visits to China. From their unity with the communists to KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) claim of unification as the party's eventual goal, they show that the pan-blue camp is pro-China, anti-US and anti-Japan. In other words, the camp is echoing Beijing. It is evident that unification under the Chinese communists' banner is Ma's eventual goal.

Taiwan will move toward unification if Ma is elected president in 2008. By that time, both Taiwan's democracy and the US advantage in the Pacific Ocean will be irreversibly harmed, while the US-Japan Security Treaty will exist in name only. The US has repeatedly told the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to maintain the "status quo." But it ignores the pan-blue camp and Beijing's preparations for future unification. Thus, as the US restrains Chen's localization push, it is in fact helping China, which is both anti-US and anti-Japan. If Ma wins the 2008 presidential election, the two sides will then be unified. Taiwan will perish and the US will be forced to withdraw from the strait.

After the unification of Taiwan and China, it will be too late for US regrets. Washington will bury Taiwan's democracy, the democratic system built by the 23 million people here, and its control of Asia. It will also lose its laurels as the global protector of democracy. Does the US want to support the democratic or the authoritarian side? The answer depends on how wise it is.

Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG