So President Chen Shui-bian (
In his letter, Chen said exactly what he should have been saying to the US all along: Taiwan has no intention of making life hard for Washington, but has been forced to take proactive measures to protect its democratic system from Beijing.
"It is unfortunate that the process of shoring up such efforts has been interpreted by China as evidence of moving toward formal independence. At times, I also hear concern from the US and the international community suggesting that developments in Taiwan are aimed at changing the cross-strait status quo, or worse, provoking confrontation with China," the president wrote. "That is certainly not the case."
Given the US's schizophrenia over Taiwan, it is little wonder that Chen was hoping to do something to generate goodwill in Washington. US leaders have a sad history of allowing themselves to be led around by the nose when the Chinese come calling, their pockets stuffed with trade deals.
Chen is clearly hoping to avoid a repetition of that sad scene in late 2003, when "defender of the free world" Bush did all but join hands with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) and sing March of the Volunteers in duet as he scolded Chen over democratic referendums.
Recent signals from the US are encouraging in this regard. It's unlikely that Bush will say anything particularly offensive directed at Taiwan. He is, after all, far more concerned about the US' mushrooming trade deficit with China -- a whopping US$201.6 billion last year, according to the US Census Bureau -- than he is about anything that Chen has done lately.
Hu, on the other hand, can hardly be expected to want to talk about much besides Taiwan. China doesn't exactly have a lot of things it can tout before US leaders and the public. Let's take a quick look at the issues, and the probable Chinese response:
Human rights?
"Don't bring it up."
Democratization?
"We're working on it."
Censorship and freedom of the press?
"Our country is big and has a lot of people. We have to control them."
Devaluing the yuan?
"Yeah, yeah, yeah ... We did that already."
North Korea?
"Let's have another round of six-party talks."
Iran?
"Selling missile technology to Tehran? Us?"
So what is left? Trade and Taiwan. Beijing will want to get some kind of symbolic gesture from Bush. But what could he possibly say, aside from the usual "our policy remains the same" line?
The last few months have marked a real departure from what were becoming regularly difficult relations between Taiwan and the US.
The Presidential Office should now be commended for its preparations for Hu's visit to the US, which included a flurry of activity in the last week between Washington and Taipei to ensure that there was nothing that would give the White House a reason to crack down on Taiwan.
No less importantly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the American Institute in Taiwan are clearly executing their roles properly. It may be simplistic to ascribe this simply to personnel changes, but the lines of communication between the two governments have clearly improved.
What a difference a de facto ambassador makes.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS