Recently, two articles about Taiwan appeared several days apart in the Honolulu Advertiser (the largest of the two daily newspapers in Hawaii). Richard Halloran's article, "U.S. must defend Taiwan against China," appeared on July 15 (sic).
Oliver Lee's article was published on July 22, titled "U.S. likely won't defend Taiwan from China." (sic) Lee is a retired professor of the University of Hawaii's Political Science Department.
Halloran is a former New York Times correspondent and his column appears weekly in the Honolulu Advertiser Sunday's Focus section.
They hold opposite views on Taiwan's sovereignty and consequences of a forced takeover by China. Lee believes that China can rightfully takeover Taiwan by force and thinks that the US neither has the right nor the willingness to defend Taiwan in such an event. I strongly disagree on both counts. Lee barely touched upon the seriousness of the issue, not to mention the horror immediately confronting the 23 million people of this island nation, which has not been a part of China since 1895. In my view, keeping silent on Lee's assertions can be seen as agreeing with his view points.
Therefore, I submitted my views, "China cannot rightfully take Taiwan by force," to the Honolulu Advertiser and was published on Aug. 3 in its Editorial page (sic).
My rebuttal to Lee's view appears below:
Lee readily accepts that Taiwan is part of China from a historical perspective and the Shanghai Communique of 1972. If historical claims are the sole criterion then Mexico could claim the same of California and Texas. As for the communique one should ask "What is a communique worth?" Nil, except to China and those who want to take the advantage of its cheap manufacturing capacity and access to its mass market. Regarding China's claim on Taiwan, countries have used words such as "acknowledge" (US), "respects and fully understands" (Japan), "takes note," and "admits," but rarely "recognizes."
In fact, any favorable statement towards Taiwan can be extracted from developing countries in exchange for economic aid. The state of international loyalty is such that any wording in a communique can be used to gain access to China's enormous market potential. A communique exacts no international enforceability as a treaty would, even if the word "recognizes" is used. As opposed to a treaty, a communique is not rectified by referendum, congress, parliament, or a legislative body independent of the administration (Lin Yu-chong "What are communiques good for?" Taipei Times, June 25, 2005).
Experts in Taiwanese and Far Eastern affairs such as Harvey Feldman (key architect of the Taiwan Relations Act) and John Tkacik Rethinking of One China; America's Stake in Taiwan) are people in the know. They have stated clearly and repeatedly that the US has never recognized Taiwan as a part of China. The US acknowledged what China said but has never recognized it. Halloran echoed this view in a letter to the editor (July 23). The US has Congress' blessing and the law (Taiwan Relations Act) on its side to defend Taiwan. The US can ill-afford to incur the reputation of abandoning a friend when push becomes shove, a friend and an important trade and strategic partner since the end of World War II.
Since then, the US, South Korea and Japan have recognized the strategic importance of a peaceful Taiwan Strait.
An international and peaceful Taiwan Strait benefits not only the people of Taiwan, but the world at large.
Taipei Flight Information Region handles more than 1,000 civil aircrafts from various countries flying through and no less than 500 vessels navigating through the strait every single day.
China deploys a large number of missiles in the region, which seriously threatens not only Taiwan but also world commerce. It is akin to a time bomb waiting to explode at any time to threaten the peace of the entire Asian-Pacific region.
Consequently, how could the security of Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait be considered a domestic issue and not an international one? Just imagine the consequences if the strait were to suddenly become a domestic part of China if Taiwan fell.
Unthinkable! The disruption to the world economy would be enormous.
By now, it should be known throughout the world that Taiwan is an independent country in every sense of the word -- with its own defined territory, democratic system of government, passport, currency, armed forces, and all that pertains to an independent country. Foreigners confuse the totalitarian government on China (People's Republic of China) and the democratic government in Taiwan (Republic of China).
After the peaceful transfer of power to a popularly elected president in 2000, Taiwan is now a completely democratic state. Its people enjoy a wide spectrum of freedom that even Americans would envy. The Taiwanese press and mass media have enjoyed more liberty than their US counterparts, and freely criticize President Chen Shui-bian (
The world must be made safe for democracy. The road to Taiwan's democracy has been long and arduous -- military rule after World War II, 40 years of martial law and the White Terror at the hands of the KMT.
Finally, Taiwan transitioned to a full-fledged democracy in May 2000. US President George W. Bush has praised Taiwan's democracy often. Today, the 900 Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan constitute an extreme threat to the safety of the life and property of the Taiwanese people.
All the world's democratic and freedom-loving countries should have the moral courage to demand China dismantle these missiles that threaten Taiwan, the Strait and international peace.
Lin Yu-chong is professor of physiology at the University of Hawaii's John A. Burns School of Medicine.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS