US politicians and military officers think that Taiwan exists solely for the benefit of -- or as a detriment to -- US-China relations. This blissfully egocentric attitude has been the source of much confusion in cross-strait relations, and could lead Washington to make a major miscalculation jeopardizing its strategic position in the Western Pacific.
The problem is that the US has demonstrated it has little understanding of the forces that drive domestic politics in Taiwan. Taiwan's relationship with China is merely one part of the equation for local politicians, and they do not score points by keeping their mouths shut about it.
Few legislators, if any, get elected based on pledging to "maintain the status quo." China just isn't an obsession for Taiwanese voters. But it is a polarizing issue that can at times be used to get people out in the streets.
So long as Washington's officials and think tanks try to analyze Taiwan through the lens of what best serves US interests, they are going to get it wrong. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, this mentality was on full display.
"I think that if that conflict were precipitated by just inappropriate and wrongful politics generated by the Taiwanese elected officials, I'm not entirely sure that this nation [the US] would come full force to their rescue if they created the problem," were the words of Senator John Warner, a Republican, on Tuesday. The senator was directing his comments specifically toward President Chen Shui-bian (
From the senator's perspective, Chen acted "inappropriately" because his decision complicated things for the US. Taiwan may owe a lot to the US, but this certainly doesn't mean that Washington can expect to dictate the decisions made by Taiwan's elected officials.
Imagine if Taiwan had complained about the US' post-Sept. 11 "war on terror" on the grounds that it undermined the US' ability to react to a crisis in East Asia. Imagine if a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator had told President George W. Bush that he had precipitated a conflict "by just inappropriate and wrongful politics" and that the US did not deserve the world's support because "they created the problem." Needless to say, this would not have made Taiwan a popular place in Washington.
Does Warner believe that politicians in Taiwan are somehow fundamentally different to their counterparts in the US?
Clearly Chen believes that he and his party stand to gain from getting tough with China, and the council decision was a part of this strategy. Surely this is not beyond the understanding of those in the US Senate.
Judging from the public statements of US officials, the entire council ordeal came as a complete surprise. Was there any excuse for this? Analysts, politicians and newspapers have been talking for weeks -- ever since Chen's New Year's address -- about the fact that the DPP was adopting a harder line toward China. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
Unfortunately for the large number of officials in the US who would rather Taiwan just keep its mouth shut and sit dutifully in the corner, every indication is that local politicians will continue to shake things up.
So since some in Washington appear to need to have the situation spelled out kindergarten-style, here it is: Until (at least) the presidential election in 2008, expect cross-strait relations to be a headache. There are going to be some bitter political battles fought here between the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and much of the fighting will be over issues that strike at the heart of Taiwan's relationship with China.
That will mean the US will have to be very proactive in dealing with Taiwan. Is it prepared to be so?
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS