According to US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen, although everybody uses the name Taiwan, if the Democratic Progressive Party were to use the name in an official political or legal framework such as a referendum, it would constitute changing the name of the country.
The US is of the opinion that this would be an intentional step toward changing the "status quo." And that is why Christensen says that he sees no room for compromise between the US and Taiwan on a UN referendum.
Christensen recently talked about the US' bottom line. He said the US was strongly opposed to any referendum, as its "potential downsides ... for Taiwan and US interests are potentially large," and "the benefits for Taiwan's international status are non-existent."
He talked about the harm a UN referendum might do Taiwan. This could be seen as implying that provoking China might have serious consequences for Taiwan. If Taiwan was considered to have provoked China by means of a referendum, the US may feel its promise to intervene in the event of an attack from China as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) would be invalidated.
Christensen thinks the proposed referendum would not help Taiwan apply for UN membership, but would limit the nation's international space. It would not win Taiwan any sympathy internationally; on the contrary, it could contribute to Beijing's power to limit Taiwan's international space and cause countries sympathetic to Taiwan to distance themselves from it. There was a warning in his speech that showed between the lines.
But why would a referendum on UN membership hurt the interests of the US and Taiwan, and force the US to strongly oppose it? The first reason is, as Christensen said in his speech, that the US' Taiwan Strait policy from 1979 has been beneficial to both Americans and Taiwanese.
"[A]s a friend of Taiwan, as an indispensable supporter of its democracy and freedoms, the United States ranks second to none," he said, because this fits with US interests in East Asia. What he didn't say was, if Taiwan provoked China, for example, by holding a referendum on applying for UN membership, this would not be in the US' interest, and so it might make an exception to its policy.
As to the second reason, Christensen said there was "absolutely no foundation to the assertion that the US coordinates its Taiwan policy with Beijing."
China and the US are working together in trying to maintain the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait. Both want to prevent Taiwanese independence and encourage cross-strait talks, but that is not the same as the US coordinating its Taiwan policy with China. However, it cannot be denied that China influences Taiwan through the US, and Beijing is putting increasing pressure on Washington.
The underlying meaning in Christensen's words is that if Taiwan continues to push for holding the referendum, this would harm US interests, and the possibility of the US and China coordinating their Taiwan policy cannot be ruled out.
Christensen says "if the referendum goes forward unchanged, we anticipate that Taiwan's perceptive, intelligent citizens will see through the rhetoric and make a sound judgment that the referendum does not serve their interests because it will be fundamentally harmful to Taiwan's external relations."
In a situation when diplomacy doesn't cut it, a direct appeal to the Taiwanese public, although it can't stop a referendum, could dampen enthusiasm for it, diminish its legitimacy and cause it to fail.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
RSS