In his essay "Taiwan's Fading Independence Movement" (Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006) Robert Ross, a professor at Boston College, grossly misreads Taiwan's domestic politics. If Washington's policy elite were to swallow such misinterpretations, the US government could end up adopting policies toward Taiwan and China which would be detrimental to East Asian peace and stability and the US' interest in steering China toward the path of a peaceful and democratic stakeholder in the international system.
Ross has made a number of misleading or factually erroneous statements.
For example, Ross charges that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) sought to adopt a new constitution prior to the December 2004 legislative election "by renouncing Taipei's formal territorial claims to the mainland." Actually, the government renounced those claims during the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Ross claims that China accelerated its purchase of Russian submarines and advanced aircraft in reaction to Lee's 1995 speech at Cornell University. In fact, the modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) started in earnest right after the 1991 Gulf War, when Beijing realized how technologically backward the PLA was.
Ross' essay also contains a number of contradictions. He states: "... the United States' security commitment to the island [of Taiwan] are stronger today than at any time since the Nixon administration." Under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), Section 2(b)(6), the US is obligated to "maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other form of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." The Bush administration spokesmen keep referring to the TRA whenever they recite the US' "one China" policy mantra.
One may reasonably surmise that the strong security commitment Ross mentioned would include the deployment of sufficient air and naval forces in the Western Pacific to repel a PLA invasion of Taiwan.
Yet Ross also cavalierly observes: "By 2000, Beijing had developed the capability to destroy Taiwan's prosperity before the United States would have time to intervene."
Many academics would dispute Ross' conclusion, and he seems to be speaking from both sides of his mouth.
de facto independence
Ross asserts that there is little sympathy in Asia for Taiwan's independence movement. He fails to mention, however, that both the US and Japan want to preserve the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, which is Taiwan's de facto independence from China.
After their security consultation in February last year, the US and Japan issued a joint statement proclaiming that peaceful settlement of the cross-strait dispute was a mutual strategic concern. Shinzo Abe, now Japan's chief Cabinet secretary, clarified Japan's position at that time. The joint statement meant that Japan would not stand aside and watch if China were to attack Taiwan.
Ross assumes that Taiwan independence is the only plausible cause of war between China and the US. He believes China is a benign power focused on peaceful rise that will never threaten the US homeland. Yet it is difficult to square this view with China's behavior. China has claimed the whole South China Sea as its territory. Chinese submarines have repeatedly intruded into Japanese territorial waters.
China is rapidly building more advanced ICBMs capable of hitting the US homeland with multiple nuclear warheads, as well as ballistic-missile-launching nuclear submarines. As US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has observed, PLA modernization goes well beyond the requirements of a Taiwan contingency.
fanning nationalism
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) deliberately fans Chinese nationalism to legitimize its harsh rule and divert attention from domestic problems such as income disparity, rural unrest, environmental degradation, rampant corruption and human-rights violations. China's educational system also indoctrinates the populace to believe that China has been humiliated by the West since the Opium War, that it must grow strong, avenge the insult and once again become the Central Kingdom.
The impulse to first become the hegemon of Asia and then challenge US dominance is strong. The US should not assume on faith that China's economic reforms inevitably will lead to its emergence as a democratic and peaceful nation.
This is why it is important for the US to forestall China's annexation of Taiwan, whether by military action or internal subversion. Taiwan is a fine example of democratization for China.
If Taiwan falls into the grasp of autocratic China, the credibility of the US-Japan alliance will be damaged beyond repair. Japan will then face unpalatable choices: go nuclear or become a protectorate of China. In either case, the US' role as guarantor of East Asian peace and stability will come to an end, with disastrous consequences for US national interests.
Therefore, it is important for the Bush administration to pay closer attention to recent political developments within Taiwan and adopt correct policies to help preserve Taiwan's freedom. There has been a marked rise in Taiwanese identity in recent years. A survey conducted by the Institute for National Policy Research early last month showed that 87.1 percent of respondents agreed Taiwan's future should be decided by the Taiwanese people, while 5.5 percent disagreed.
A poll released by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on March 13 showed that 50 percent of respondents supported Taiwan independence, 29.4 percent favored unification with China and 12.6 percent wanted to maintain the status quo. The percentage favoring unification is unusually high, indicating inroads by Beijing's soft "united front" tactics.
Despite growing Taiwanese consciousness, the DPP has suffered severe setbacks in the last two major elections, but not because of voter dissatisfaction with its China policy. The strong showing of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is attributable largely to the entrenched electoral machine which the KMT was able to construct over its half century of authoritarian rule.
Taiwan's population consists of four ethnic groups: the Hoklo group which migrated from Fujian beginning in the 17th century, 65 percent; the Hakka which migrated from Canton, 20 percent; Chinese refugees and their descendants who fled with Chiang Kai-shek (
The Chinese who came in 1949 form the core of KMT support. But just as the Japanese who colonized Taiwan from 1895 to 1945 did, the KMT adopted a policy of divide and conquer to create division between the Hakka and Aboriginal groups and the majority Hoklo group. Many Hakka families, for example, were given preference in obtaining civil service jobs such as railroad workers, policemen, etc. Thus, the KMT could always count on dominant support in the Hakka and Aboriginal areas.
The Hoklo group could not form a solid voting bloc either, since many people were coopted into the KMT. People needed to make a living and the KMT government ruled Taiwan with an iron fist, controlling the politics and economy of the island well into the late 1980s.
Another KMT election tool cuts across all ethnic groups. Being the richest political party in the world, the KMT is able to buy votes with the help of local gangsters. A village head may be given NT$200,000 to buy 200 votes from villagers. Failure to deliver the promised votes could lead to a severe beating. Such vote buying has declined in larger cities but remains prevalent in rural areas and is an important factor in local elections.
In the 2004 legislative elections, the DPP failed to win a legislative majority together with its pan-green partner because it was overconfident and nominated too many candidates. Under the multi-candidate, multi-vote system, DPP votes were spread too thin and many candidates fell just short of the vote needed for victory. The reasons for the DPP's debacle in last December's local elections are complex.
First, there were constant KMT advantages in the solid voting bloc of minorities and vote-buying at the township and village levels.
Second, the visit of former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
Finally, many DPP core supporters were dismayed by Chen's weak-kneed stance toward China and wished to teach the DPP a lesson. They hoped that a trouncing at the polls might finally wake the DPP and force it to revert to Taiwan First policies. They stayed away from the polls in droves, creating a historic low turnout.
Most polls have shown 80 to 85 percent of Taiwanese reject unification with China.? In February last year, Chen reached a 10-point agreement with Soong, agreeing to the ROC framework, reaffirming the "five noes" stipulations in the 2000 inaugural address, and promising to push early implementation of the three direct links. DPP supporters, especially in the south, felt betrayed. Chen's failure to prevent the KMT's and PFP's pledge of allegiance to Beijing later in that spring added to the sense of outrage and despair.
Thus, it was the DPP's inability to stand up to the combined pressure from the opposition parties and Beijing which led to its defeat in last December's elections. Looking ahead, the DPP faces difficult struggles in the mayoral election in Kaoh-siung and in next year's elections for a reduced legislature.
In the 2008 presidential election, the KMT is expected to field its popular Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
key issue
The question of independence versus unification will inevitably come to the fore in 2008, forcing voters to choose. Will they choose democracy, de facto independence from China and a free way of life, or will they choose the CCP's repressive rule, under which there will be no guarantee of life, liberty and property?
In the last two presidential elections, Taiwan voted for the DPP candidate, despite China's threats of dire consequences for doing so. Faced with a stark choice, voters may again opt for freedom.
There is much the US can do to ensure peace in the Taiwan Strait, by enhancing its military presence in the Western Pacific and by helping Taiwan bolster its basic defenses. The US could start negotiating a free-trade agreement with Taiwan.
While cautioning Chen not to irritate Beijing is appropriate given our preoccupation with Iraq, the Bush administration needs to be careful not to give Beijing the impression that the US is committed to work with China to engineer a peaceful annexation of Taiwan.? After all, the future of Taiwan should be decided by its 23 million inhabitants, and the US should respect the people's democratic choice.
US resolve in maintaining Taiwan's status quo is consistent with its role as an advocate of democratic values and th US' strategic interests. As the late representative Gerald Solomon wisely averred: "Taiwan's security is ultimately America's security as well."
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
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