It was the father of Tip O'Neil, the late speaker of the US House of Representatives, who said that all politics is local -- a statement that still rings true not only in the US, but in democracies in general.
The issue of "ceasing" the National Unification Council and guidelines seems to have blown over, but some differences of opinion -- most likely resulting from domestic politics in both Washington and Taipei -- continue to be debated. This debate may be setting the tone for future cross-strait politics.
Two errors occurred in the council/guidelines issue. The first was one of poor timing.
When China promulgated the "Anti-Secession" Law last year, it clearly altered the "status quo" and endangered Taiwan. The US opposed the move, carefully, and Taiwan galvanized its most effective international public relations effort in the present administration's tenure. This was negated, however, by the opposition leaders' visits to China.
For Taiwan, it would have been better to have raised the plan to "cease" the council and guidelines before the visits took place. It would have been a quid pro quo, with each side having contributed to changing the "status quo."
When it did come up, in President Chen Shui-bian's (
Those in Washington were, however.
This brought on the second error. In a routine daily briefing for the media by the State Department, a statement about Chen's New Year speech was made before any questions had been asked. That was very unusual as the subject had not come up before.
Even if the New Year speech had attracted significant public attention, it would surely have been better not to comment on a cross-strait issue on which China had not yet voiced its displeasure.
Furthermore, the fact that the US publically opposed Chen's move only strengthened China's case against it. As a result, China was able to play the wounded party and gather support from the international community.
The result of these two errors was that the US proved itself willing and able to enforce its policy of "no unilateral change to the status quo" when dealing with Taiwan, but less so when dealing with China. This despite the fact that Taiwan is democratic and China authoritarian.
It could very well become the pattern of the future. China should quite easily be able to oppose Taiwanese independence while nibbling away at Taiwan's international interests.
The US needs to find a way of maintaining its interests in East Asia in the face of China's expansion, both in the region and internationally.
The US' relationship with China will inevitably be an important factor in cross-strait issues. At the same time, the US will need to keep abreast of political changes in Taiwan's relatively young democracy.
For its part, Taiwan will have to come to terms with the competing priorities that determine US policy.
Taiwan is only now beginning to fully understand these different political forces.
The need for the US government to come to a consensus domestically is being felt more now in Taiwan than ever before.
While Taiwan has fewer interests to protect, it has a far more difficult task in reaching consensus over its form of government and preserving its democracy in the face of opposition from China.
Because of this, it is easy to see how issues such as the economy and social welfare, security and freedom can be overwhelmed by the lingering problem of resolving the political system.
The next two years will be difficult for anyone with interests in Taiwan, China, the US or in East Asia generally. China is faced with growing problems in the largest part of the country -- the west -- with the largest number of its citizens -- some 900 million. In the past, people didn't mean much to the Chinese authorities. That is still true, but the information era makes it much more difficult for China to sweep matters under the carpet.
The US has a mid-term election this year and a presidential election the next. Added to that, the country faces an unusually large number of very deep domestic and foreign problems, and politicians are keen to use these as stepping stones to the top. In this climate, domestic problems in Taiwan, which badly need to be understood to avoid tensions, will not receive the attention they should.
Of course, many issues will be heavily debated in Taiwan during the same period. There will also be elections for the mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung this year, legislative elections next year and then the presidential election the year after.
If a relative non-issue such as "ceasing" the council and guidelines caused such a ruckus, the next couple of years should be very interesting for anyone interested in Taiwanese politics.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with