Last week the US National Security Council released a 49-page document entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, outlining US President George W. Bush's strategy for defense and foreign policy for the remainder of his second term. At the same time, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed Washington's growing concerns about China's military build-up.
Washington's statements regarding its dissatisfaction with Beijing's military expansion were conceivably a response to recent comments made by Guo Boxiong (
Stressing Beijing's objections to the efforts of "Taiwanese independence secessionist forces," Guo announced that China's military budget would increase by 14.7 percent this year to 283.8 billion yuan (US$35.3 billion).
The budget increase could be interpreted as a strong reaction to President Chen Shui-bian's (
Washington's grave concerns are caused not only by the military budget increases themselves, but also by the lack of transparency behind them.
Washington faces something of a dilemma: While the Taiwanese government continues to pursue democratization, the US is often hamstrung by its own policy of calling on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to maintain the "status quo."
Bush has repeated his call for a peaceful resolution to cross-strait tensions, warning China that it should not use coercive measures against Taiwan, and cautioning both sides against unilateral actions that change the "status quo."
Nevertheless, when it comes to the question of which side is actively seeking to change the "status quo," we need look only at the military imbalance across the Taiwan Strait for the answer.
Could it be more clear who is rocking the boat and altering the "status quo" through military means? Should the Taiwanese people be considered troublemakers for embracing democracy?
Since the US report called on China to "follow the path of East Asia's many modern democracies, including Taiwan," the current US policy of "encouraging both sides of the Taiwan Strait to engage in dialogue and solve mutual disputes in a peaceful manner" should further incorporate the idea of promoting democratic principles. This would fit with Bush's grand strategy of spreading democracy throughout the world and maintaining regional and international security.
Politicians of all parties in Taiwan should read the US report carefully -- its findings are a timely wake-up call for those who have painted a fanciful picture of unification between Taiwan and China.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Most importantly, China must recognize the fact that any attempts to intimidate or belittle Taiwan will only have a negative effect.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS