The trip to Taiwan by former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton shows there are at least a few people in the upper tiers of Washington who are prepared to speak in support of Taiwan and to act on their words by visiting and affording respect to the office of Taiwanese president. So, more strength to him and those like him.
But Bolton knows, as much as any informed friend or foe of Taiwan, that Taiwan's bid to join the UN is about the performance, not the result. When conclusions are foregone, sometimes there is hay to be made from the ritual of failure.
Regrettably, all too often this hay is left in the barn, so to speak, by diplomats who simply do not know how to communicate with Washington's jumpier officials.
Taiwan should therefore offer its gratitude to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose recent misuse of the UN Charter and UN Resolutions can only harm the credibility of the UN and assist Taiwan's cause. When Ban refused to accept a letter from President Chen Shui-bian (
Only a mistake of this seriousness could possibly take the heat off Chen and place it squarely on the UN itself -- even among pro-China forces in the US.
Even better, China has threatened to introduce a motion to the UN to affirm that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China, an action that would be as strategically inept as any that Beijing has come up with in recent years. And this comes just as many begin to wake up to Beijing's attitude toward the rest of the world: If you have what we want, then we can be friends; if you dare cast light on our atrocities and neglect, then we can not.
If Beijing is stupid enough to up-end the "status quo" that pro-China forces in the US use to keep Taiwan in line, it will find little joy.
In the unlikely event that the matter goes to the Security Council, it will be vetoed by the US and possibly other nations. More likely, however, it would be put to the General Assembly, and this is where the fun would begin.
What would happen? Countries rich in natural resources that depend on China for investment will fall into line quite happily, though some in Asia might balk at the prospect of ramping up tensions. Communist states would also follow the party line. Meanwhile, Taiwan's two dozen allies would most likely vote against the motion. No surprises there.
China's problem lies in the majority that remains. Most countries have been happy to follow along with China's blustering and demagoguery because most of it has seemed to be hot air. Humor Beijing a little and keep things calm, so the reasoning goes, and economic benefits will be there for everyone.
But in demanding that this pragmatism turn into support for a symbolic statement that would authorize Chinese violence, Beijing will likely discover that many countries -- possibly most -- will be less tolerant. The result: a humiliating majority of abstentions and a number of "no" votes sprinkled among them, and a severe blow to the credibility of China's claim to Taiwan both at home and abroad.
Advocates of Taiwanese independence must be salivating at the thought of it: an international repudiation of Beijing's imperial agenda sparked by China's own stupidity.
Some in China must realize that there is this risk, and the whole affair may quietly disappear. But it remains tempting to say to China, and to its UN cheer squad: Bring it on, you oafs. Do your worst.
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