In "Wake up to the Chinese threat" (The Hill, June 28), US Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote: "It is becoming clear that the future status of Taiwan is the key to US interests in Asia. Like a keystone holding an arch in place, without Taiwan our friends in Seoul, Tokyo and Manila would quickly get sucked into the Beijing vortex ... Further, the Chinese continue to upgrade their missile systems, which now include the extended-range DF-31A, which can target most of the world, including the continental US."
Aside from being a reassuring statement that ties the future status of Taiwan to US national security, this is the antithesis of recent talk of abandoning Taiwan as raised by a handful of US-based commentators who are either pro-Beijing or else have grown exasperated by Taiwan's reluctance to arm itself adequately.
However, as long as there exist discourses premised on Taiwan being a US burden, it shouldn't be overly provocative to pose the question: What could be in store for Taiwan in case it falls into Beijing's grip? A glimpse to a probable answer can be found in this year's Pentagon report to the US Congress, titled Military Power of the People's Republic of China, 2006.
Inside, there is an intriguing sentence added anew -- as versus last year's edition -- to a highlighted section with the subject title of "Factors of Deterrence."
Specifically, "an insurgency against the occupation could tie up substantial forces for years" is listed as one of the potential factors that might discourage Beijing from engaging in a reckless military adventure against Taiwan. It is clear that, should there be any multi-year insurgency against a Chinese occupation, immediately coming to one's mind would be a scenario not unlike the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Hence, what the Pentagon ostensibly intended as a means to pile up more weight to its impediment against Chinese aggression should function no less than a stern warning to the Taiwanese. Besides, there could be more to this Pentagon statement. In order for the insurgency to last years and to tie up substantial forces at the same time, it inevitably requires massive outside help. And the most likely sources are the US, as the report is implying without much subtlety, and possibly Japan.
The only purpose for the US and Japan to intervene in the insurgency would be to prevent China from ever being able to utilize a secured Taiwan as a springboard for power projection into the Pacific. But this vital strategic consideration, when reinforced with what's being affirmed by Rohra-bacher's aforementioned statement, also attests to the fallacy of the supposition that a peaceful resolution will evolve from non-violent unification between Taiwan and China and makes this last notion nothing but a delusion pervasive among Taiwan's pan-blue voters.
Regardless, it's the Taiwanese people's lives that are at stake here. It's simply too important a subject to be left to even the good intentions of Washington or Tokyo, much less Beijing and the pan-blues. Instead, the entire Taiwanese populace should face up to the fact that misery associated with insurgency lasting for years would not discriminate based on political hue.
Every Taiwanese, irrespective of political persuasion, should heed this clarion though succinct call sounded by the US Pentagon, and demand that the Taiwanese government, especially the legislators, halt any practice of duplicitously toying with Taiwan's future, be it the continuing blockage of the special arms bill or the dilution of sovereignty on account of political expediency.
Only by passionately pursuing the goal of a secure and
sovereign Taiwan can the Taiwanese preclude the possibility that one day their children would wander the streets of a Taipei that resembles Beirut in the 1980s.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath