When commenting on the potential for conflict in the Taiwan Strait and the likelihood of China annexing Taiwan by force, one of the most frequently invoked mantras in the West is this: "Chinese consider it their sacred duty to `reunite' Taiwan with the motherland."
It is then further inferred that the Chinese would stop at nothing to achieve their goal of unification, and that its commitment to this goal is akin to religious devotion.
In order to lend credence to this line of reasoning, one only has to cite the time when a People's Liberation Army general nonchalantly said that Beijing would be willing to sacrifice the most prosperous half of China, or everything east of Xian, as the price for nuclear attacks on major US cities -- which he thought was the proper response to US intervention in a cross-strait war.
What might have been overlooked is that the word "sacred" is often attached in Chinese politics to an objective which despotic rulers deem to be an impossible dream.
For instance, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regimes of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) told the Taiwanese people for years that reclaiming China was "our sacred mission."
Beijing has also dusted off its litany of complaints regarding historical grievances and humiliations from time to time to camouflage its true designs on Taiwan, which are part of Beijing's plan for global strategic expansion. To give this earthly desire any kind of religious underpinning is preposterous since the Chinese Communists are generally atheist.
Therefore, any Chinese military attack on Taiwan would be a result of rational calculation. That is why US defense officials constantly remind the Chinese not to miscalculate.
As long as the US-Japan-Taiwan coalition maintains transparently adequate military capability in the region to make miscalculation improbable, Beijing will launch an attack only when compelled to forego rational calculation.
Restraint imposed on Taiwan by the US effectively removes the chance that President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration will cross the line. It then follows that there is almost zero chance that Beijing will be left without an alternative except to attack while Chen is Taiwan's leader.
This could all change should KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) become Taiwan's president in 2008.
Events could then unfold along either of the following two different courses, either of which could have disastrous consequences for the Taiwanese people.
First, Ma could acquiesce to all of Beijing's demands, including establishing direct links, unilaterally disarming and criminalizing Taiwan's independence movement. That would touch off an internal uprising with unpredictable ramifications.
Alternatively, Ma could defy Beijing's expectations, either by refusing Beijing's reunification timetable -- a move which would likely be backed by the majority of his pan-blue supporters -- or claiming an inability to outlaw Taiwan's independence movement lest uncontrollable internal strife erupt. Hawks in Beijing would then decide that Ma was not sincere about unification, even though Ma once openly advocated unification as the ultimate goal for the KMT, and that "all hope for peaceful reunification has been exhausted." Beijing's leadership would then be left with no choice but to resort to "nonpeaceful means" in accordance with its "Anti-Secession" Law.
There are a number of other factors that might prove to be even more compelling to Beijing. An important seed was planted through the formation of the Chinese Communist Party-KMT alliance last year, and its agreement to push for "unification."
The domestic expectation in China for Ma to deliver is palpable even now, and would become overwhelming if and when he is actually elected.
But the most ominous development is that the international community's expectation seems to be growing in lockstep with China's internal glee.
After his inauguration, any defiance by Ma on the issue of unification would be construed as a direct affront to Beijing. It would cause Beijing to feel it had lost face in the eyes of the international community, a humiliation which no Beijing regime could survive. That would likely cause it to react decisively, especially with the added domestic pressure caused by the "Anti-Secession" Law.
"Losing face" internationally could emerge as one of the most probable reasons compelling Beijing to act militarily without rational calculation.
Therefore, just like the saying that a girl can't be "a little" pregnant, the pan-blue camp's wishful thinking that Taiwan can be "a little" unified with China is a dangerous exercise that would bring catastrophe to the Taiwanese people.
To say that Ma and the KMT are playing with fire would therefore be quite an understatement.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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