The US and China have developed a broad relationship discussing a wide range of issues -- some of which they agree upon and others that they do not.
In addition, the US has long-established agreements with China and Taiwan regarding cross-strait issues. The nature of the wording in these agreements is written with great care. With the constant changes taking place in China, the US and Taiwan, meetings on cross-strait issues are frequent and policies are rearranged.
The US-China relationship involves repeated meetings between senior leaders following significant developments. That is clearly not the case between the US and Taiwan, though there is equal need to hold high level dialogues between the two countries.
Much will be happening in the political scenes of all three countries over the next year. Taiwan has two elections coming up next year, while China has the Chinese Communist Party's 17th National Congress this year, followed by the Olympic Games next year -- which is already occupying Beijing. The US has elections for president, the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate in November next year.
The congress in China is not likely to cause problems -- at least not immediately -- and the Olympics will continue to occupy Beijing in many ways. The people of the two democracies -- the US and Taiwan -- will soon be occupied with their elections and the changes they may bring.
The US believes it is necessary to work more closely with China. Will this become an established policy? If so, the question is, can the US maintain its strength in the region? Taiwan, a young democracy, is also occupied with social changes as more of the public identifies itself as Taiwanese.
At the same time, the US has told Taiwan that it opposes Taiwan seeking to join the UN under the name of "Taiwan." Was such a bid necessary? Aside from the fact that the UN would not allow it to join because of China's opposition, Taiwan's goal has a history. In earlier days, US experts only had to deal with one person, late president Chiang Ching-kuo (
During that time, an opposition party became legitimate. The opposition included Vice President Annette Lu (
Both obviously understood that it was only the UN, not the US, that could let Taiwan in. The Taiwanese wanted to join the UN and most politicians supported the idea. Now Taiwan has President Chen Shui-bian (
Later on, Lee pressed to get a visa to go to Cornell and today Chen is doing much the same. Both are trying to remind the world that there is a place called Taiwan -- a democracy where people are free.
The famous missile tests in 1995 and 1996 in large measure demonstrated that the leaders of Taiwan are legitimate -- a sharp contrast with the leaders of China. That was the real purpose then, not the visit to Cornell or getting into the UN.
China may not like an effort of this kind, but it has been harming Taiwan in many ways in cross-strait and international issues. Taiwan has also passed referendums that were seen as much more troublesome in the past.
The US should not meddle in this issue because the people of Taiwan have shown they support having referendums. The two main political parties say they have the right to hold a referendum on joining the UN, but are arguing over the name that should be used for Taiwan. It is not a good idea for a country to get involved in other countries' democratic processes.
Further, in next year's presidential election, there will be a decision on a new president and there may be two referendums, one on the UN and the other on the KMT's stolen assets. A total of 113 legislators will have been elected and its impact will be felt. The results of this and the presidential decision will determine Taiwan's future. It is likely to be even more tense than 2004.
As for getting the right people in the US government to better understand the complicated and sensitive issues surrounding Taiwan, there must be some process of dialogue between the two sides -- a real dialogue between senior experts from a variety of government agencies -- perhaps given a short unofficial time for them -- who can meet periodically and press for consensus on important issues.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views in this article are his own.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS