Douglas Paal was director of the Taipei office of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) from 2002 until early this year. On July 13, he spoke at the Brookings Institution in Washington to an audience of policymakers concerned with the Taiwan issue.
In reflecting on his time here, Paal made a number of observations which demonstrated his incisive knowledge of Taiwan, although -- perhaps due to time constraints -- he failed to raise the core issue in each instance.
For example, Paal touched on how Mainlanders discriminated against ethnic Taiwanese (85 percent of the 23 million population), tried to destroy local language and culture and persecuted and executed dissidents. He did not mention the 228 Incident, in which at least 20,000 Taiwanese were massacred by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), or the murder of dissident Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) mother and twin daughters after the Kaohsiung Incident.
Paal praised the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leadership for not stirring up the past through "rancorous legal proceedings or truth commissions" after gaining power in 2000.
The problem is that ethnic cleavage and bitterness persist to this day because there has not been admission of guilt, let alone an apology, from the perpetrators.
After World War II, the German people reflected on and properly atoned for the atrocities committed by the Nazis. The KMT's position is: Let's forget the past and concentrate on the future.
Paal rightly criticized Taiwan's media for its lack of investigative journalism. He could have pointed out that Taiwan's print and electronic media are dominated by pro-unification journalists who bombard the public every day with pro-China, anti-US and anti-Taiwan propaganda. Many media outlets are now under Hong Kong ownership and the government appears incapable of stopping the infiltration of Taiwan's media by Beijing's agents.
Paal described Taiwan as a ballot box democracy still lacking in "an invisible element that helps a democracy reduce its disadvantages and enhance its advantages."
He was too polite to say more.
The main problem with Taiwan's nascent democracy is that the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) lack the sense of fair play which is essential to the institutionalization of democracy.
The pan-blue opposition has never accepted its defeat in the 2004 presidential election. It continues to undermine and paralyze the DPP administration through its majority in the Legislative Yuan. It has tried to enact laws to usurp the powers of the executive.
After failing to impeach President Chen Shui-bian (
The leaders of the KMT and PFP promote unification with China. Through their pilgrimages to Beijing, they have in essence pledged their allegiance to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Taiwan's democracy is in grave danger because the disloyal opposition willingly works with Beijing to subvert Taiwan's democracy and sovereignty from within.
Some of Paal's comments sounded facetious. He said: "Today, the PRC and US articulate their [common] interests in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait region."
Of course, the PRC would prefer to annex Taiwan peacefully, through internal subversion, and its soft "united front" strategy is proving quite effective with the capitulation of the KMT and the PFP to China.
Nevertheless, the modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) continues unabated. The goal is to overwhelm Taiwan's resistance before the US can react. Beyond that the PLA is developing the capacity to attack US forces deployed in East Asia and to launch a nuclear attack on the US homeland. It is prudent to assume that after attaining hegemony over Asia, the PRC will eventually challenge the US' global preeminence.
If avoiding war in the Taiwan Strait is the only goal of US policy, then Taiwan's freedom could be sacrificed. The impact of Taiwan's annexation, however, would be far-reaching. It sits astride the sea lanes and air space vital to Japan and South Korea.
Once Taiwan is controlled by China, Japan will face the unpalatable prospect of developing nuclear weapons.
A nuclear-armed Japan may lack the geographical size necessary to absorb a first strike from China and survive to retaliate. On the other hand, the US nuclear umbrella could be unreliable, since any US leader will hesitate to sacrifice New York and Washington to save Tokyo. Of course, one rationale for Japan joining the nuclear club is to make sure that this umbrella will be operative.
On balance, however, it is more likely that the pacifist elements in Japan will prevail and Japan will be reduced to the status of a docile protectorate of China. In this scenario, China would be able to requisition Japan's considerable technological and financial resources to build up its wealth and power. With the combined strength of China, Taiwan and Japan, it would not be unrealistic for China to aspire to become the world superpower in the next 25 years. Either way, the US could well be forced to abandon its forward deployment strategy in Asia and withdraw to Guam and Hawaii. The US' national interests and security would be severely impaired.
Paal praised former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) for his pragmatism. Hsieh was quoted as saying: "Independence is like a distant moon. We can reach for it, but our arms will never get there."
But if independence is ruled out, the only option left is annexation by the PRC, since the status quo is increasingly untenable in the absence of resolute support from the US. From the Taiwanese perspective, is it really "pragmatic" to give up hard-won freedom and accept the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) where there will no longer be any guarantee of life, liberty and property?
And is it really in the US' interests to urge the Taiwanese to forfeit their democracy and sovereignty so as to achieve peace across the Taiwan Strait?
Paal was much too sanguine about Taiwan's current situation and future prospects. For example, in response to a question about what would happen to Sino-Taiwan relations if KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) were to win the 2008 presidential election, Pall quoted remarks Ma made in Tokyo last month that unification was not even a topic until China became democratic.
But that same Ma in March told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington that if he were elected, he would sign a peace accord with China by accepting the "one China" principle that Taiwan is part of China. The 30-year modus vivendi that Ma proposed is a ruse.
Once Taiwan capitulates and the US' Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is abrogated, the PLA will occupy Taiwan and the population will face massive retribution from the CCP. It is worth remembering that since the occupation of Tibet in the early 1950s, the PRC has caused the death of more than 1.25 million Tibetans through massacres and starvation.
Paal saw no use in US flag officers visiting Taiwan. Yet the current practice of allowing only junior officers to visit doesn't work. It is not easy for US colonels and captains to tell Taiwan's generals and admirals what to do to improve the nation's defense.
Dan Blumenthal and Gary Schmitt wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal article: "Only generals and admirals command joint land, sea and air operations, have experience in comprehensive military planning and the bureaucratic authority within the Pentagon to push through new initiatives to help Taiwan."
For the sake of the militaries of the US and Taiwan, the ban against visits by US flag officers needs to be lifted.
Paal also dismissed the US-Japan "two plus two" agreement as lacking in operative content. This refers to a joint statement made in February last year where Japan for the first time stated that a peaceful settlement of the dispute between Taiwan and China was a mutual concern of Japan and the US.
Actually, the US-Japan alliance is quite healthy for many reasons. Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi has built a solid personal relationship with US President George W. Bush. Japan provided logistical support for the US campaign in Afghanistan and it sent several hundred engineering troops to Iraq.
After the 1995-1996 missile crisis in the Taiwan Strait, the US and Japan signed an agreement to strengthen their alliance. Japan's national defense perimeter was expanded to include the area north of the Philippines, thus encompassing the Taiwan Strait.
Japan has been cooperating with US efforts to realign its forces in East Asia. US forces and Japan's Self-Defense Force are increasingly inter-operative.
Japan is vitally interested in preserving Taiwan's status quo as a de facto independent state. It is difficult to understand why Paal is so dismissive of Japan's potential role in helping the US to maintain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
At the Brookings event, Paal was introduced by Ambassador Jeffrey Bader, a former director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council. Bader commended Paal for being pro-American, not pro-Taiwan and not pro-Beijing. He said: "[Doug] did what he had to do for US national interests, not for Taiwan's interests, not for the PRC interests."
It is the obvious duty of US diplomats to exclusively safeguard the US' interests. So why did the ambassador choose to belabor this self-evident fact?
The Bush administration pays insufficient attention to developments in Taiwan or China and the US is preoccupied with problems in the Middle East. It does not have a clear policy on Taiwan's future as part of a comprehensive, long-term strategic vision of the US role in Asia. US policy toward China and Taiwan is adrift, focusing on short-term goals and superficial, mundane affairs. There is little consensus as to what policy will serve US national interests.
Asia will most likely prove to be the most important region for US security in this century because of the rapid rise of authoritarian China and the lack of an effective multilateral security arrangement in this region. It is high time the US paid attention to Asia so government officials do not inadvertently advance the interests of another nation at the expense of the US.
At a news conference on Aug. 11, Bush said: "If we ever give up the desires to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation."
Despite some aberrations, the US is still the shining city on the hill, giving hope to billions of oppressed people worldwide. Once the US loses its ideal of freedom, its influence and ability to sway other nations will decline and the world will fall into an abyss of suffering. Bush was talking about Iraq but his words apply equally well to Taiwan.
Li Thian-hok is a commentator based in Pennsylvania.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS