While the administration of US President George W. Bush has officially objected to the administration of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) using the name "Taiwan" to apply for UN membership this year, calling it a move to unilaterally change the cross-strait "status quo," Washington seems to be overlooking measures by Beijing to wage diplomatic warfare against Taiwan's participation in the international arena.
Recently, China introduced a series of moves in some international organizations to identify Taiwan as part of its territory. For example, in the World Organization for Animal Health's latest resolution on affirming adherence to the so-called "one China policy," it "notes" China's view that "the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, which includes Taiwan."
While some analysts from Washington see Chen's push toward explicit Taiwanese independence through implementing a referendum, introducing a new constitution and recently articulating the so-called "four imperatives and one non-issue," Beijing's diplomatic maneuverings to exclude Taiwan's participation and legal representation in international organizations deserves more attention.
The official US position toward Taiwan and China is to oppose unilateral change to the "status quo," although US officials ordinarily use the phrase only after the Taiwanese government has acted in a manner perceived to be aggravating China.
Only until recently, Richard Lawless, US deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia and the Pacific, publicly accused China of changing the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait through its rapid buildup of a ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. In addition to his predecessor Peter Rodman's accusation that China violated the "status quo" last year, Lawless is the first US official to confirm Beijing's military expansion has "changed" the cross-strait "status quo."
Not only have those two statements illustrated the complicated nature of US-Taiwan relations, they have also demonstrated an essential need for leaders of both Washington and Taipei to engage in a more candid, cooperative and constructive dialogue in the next nine months prior to Taiwan's presidential election.
Some analysts have emphasized that since the Bush administration is preoccupied with North Korea and Iraq, Taiwan should remain quiet and refrain from giving Beijing reasons to pressure the US over Taiwan policy.
But even if Taiwan plays the good kid, to what extent has Washington successfully urged Beijing to give more space to Taipei on the playground?
Bush's recent speech in Prague earlier this month serves as an example for Taipei and Washington to rethink their bilateral relationship. Elaborating on his idea of expanding democracy and freedom to the world, Bush cited South Korea and Taiwan as examples that prove the US can maintain friendships while simultaneously pushing those nations toward democracy.
If Bush and his administration are serious about this, they should cherish Taiwan's democracy by showing more support for Taiwan in the international arena. The Taiwanese government's attempts to safeguard its sovereignty in the face of China's constant attempts at international isolation and military intimidation should be viewed as a model democracy counteracting authoritarian suppression. Who more than Taiwan deserves the promise behind Bush's strategy of "seeking and supporting the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation?"
The US-Taiwan relationship could benefit from following such a strategy.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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