Several days ago the US said in a statement that it does not support steps that would appear to change Taiwan's status unilaterally, such as changing names of entities that are based within Taiwan. The statement was public and must have pleased China, while it embarrassed the legitimate leaders of Taiwan on a subject most Taiwanese support and which has been dealt with before with no problem.
For years Taiwan had a provincial government that had considerable power, especially covering government financing (which included most government owned companies). This was essentially done away with in the mid-1990s. Like the present issue, it was based on democratic necessity. US experts at that time fretted that China would find that action unacceptable. This proved not to be the case.
In this present case, the effort by Taiwan to change names is not only an effort by political leaders for political purposes. It is also a legitimate need for broader purposes.
The history of the US-Taiwan Business Council, located in Washington, seems to have been forgotten. It was originally called the US?ROC Economic Council, with its counterpart ROC?US Economic Council in Taipei. Eventually the council's name was changed to its present name because many US businesses couldn't find it -- they thought the ROC (Republic of China) was China.
Since the very beginning of democratization in Taiwan, the US has put off for many years the need to make useful changes in conducting this special relationship. After much agony, it was tried in 1994. Not much came out of it. There was a greater explanation of what would not be done -- to satisfy China -- than what changes would need to be made to what has become a relationship between two democracies.
Now, with the rise of China and India, the changes occurring in Russia and the US' focus on the Middle East, the impact on the continuing cross-strait issue is becoming even more difficult to manage. Following the studies and institutions that helped shape worldwide economic rules, more worldwide studies on developing political changes are beginning to emerge. Inevitably this will have a considerable impact on cross-strait issues.
These are long-term efforts, but in the meantime policies are made on short-term issues. China, for example, has been trying to convince other countries, especially the US, that this is the year Taiwan could very likely move toward independence via changes to its Constitution. They know well that the Taiwanese laws being considered are domestic in nature and that in any event, it is almost impossible to make changes to the Constitution in such a short time.
Some friends of China seem to believe that pressing others to prevent Taiwan's possible action is a sign that Beijing is improving its international behavior. China's concerns are more likely meant to reduce any attention on not only the Taiwan issue, but to domestic concerns during next year's Olympics. They had little to say regarding domestic name changes until after the US had publicly made its statement on the issue.
The US focus on cross-strait issues is primarily on lowering tensions. As important as that is, and aside from the relationship with China, the US ought to concern itself with not only the domestic politics of Taiwan, but in gaining consensus within the many elements of the government in Washington.
Taiwan's two major political parties have very different objectives that impact on the direction the nation is likely to take. The question for the US is: What should it do once the elections are over?
The Democratic Progressive Party will continue strengthening "Taiwanese identity" at home, continue efforts to increase the ntaion's international status through democratization and economic relationships and to move as much as possible toward independence.
The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) objective for now is to regain power at any cost. If it is successful, it has made clear that it seeks eventual unification with China. Its present priorities, such as greater economic and cultural relations with China, are part of that objective.
Instead of chasing after name changes of little consequence, the US had better try to determine what future relationship with Taiwan would best serve its interest.
At this stage, one party states it would establish a much broader relationship with China. Little is said about security issues, but its actions have shown that Taiwan would likely not be much involved in that issue.
The other party would continue to press for its political objectives. As a consequence it may well be troublesome, but its interest will likely be in continuing close relations with its present friends, while continuing to seek dialogue with Beijing.
Instead of pressing Taiwan not to change names, it would have been better if Washington had pressed China into establishing a dialogue with the elected leaders of Taiwan. Unfortunately, the US also did not seem to have the kind of dialogue with Taiwan that is needed.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS