The Russian attack against Georgia on Aug. 6 — two days before the Beijing Olympics began — has led to a number of commentaries drawing parallels between Georgia’s relation with Russia and Taiwan’s with China.
In one article, “Events in Georgia bode ill for Taiwan,” published in The Weekly Standard on Aug. 25, Dan Blumenthal and Chris Griffin strongly criticize the administration of US President George W. Bush for its tepid response to Russia’s invasion. They see in Washington’s complicity in isolating Taiwan a temptation for China’s aggression. They argue for a clear signal that the US will defend Taiwan from attack.
In the article “From Georgia to Taiwan,” published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 16, Richard Bush and Jeff Bader blame the Bush administration for giving “mixed signals” to Georgia, thereby encouraging Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to “provoke” the Russian bear. On the other hand, they laud Bush’s “more tempered approach” to Taiwan, which led to “a more nuanced American policy” that bolstered Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) election, and “hopeful initiatives to stabilize cross-Strait relations in ways that hold out the prospect for improving Taiwan’s economy, reducing the military threat from China, preserving Taiwan’s democratic system of governance.”
The two articles represent opposite sides of the US political spectrum: Blumenthal and Griffin are associated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, while Bush and Bader are at the liberal Brookings Institution and are associated with the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
On the policy toward Georgia, we would actually disagree with both analyses: In our view, the Bush administration did a reasonably good job in its expressions of support for the newly democratic country. There may have been some tepid responses right before and after the invasion, but overall, the US did the right thing: Express clear support for Georgia, condemn the Russian invasion and get the NATO partners to form a united front in opposition to the Russian moves.
On the issue of US policy toward Taiwan, we would fully agree with Blumenthal and Griffin and strongly disagree with Bush and Bader: At least since the end of 2003, the policies of the Bush administration toward the democratic island have been abysmal. In 2001, Bush started out quite alright by declaring he would do “whatever it takes” to help defend Taiwan from aggressive moves by China.
However, in December 2003 he somehow got weak knees and started to oppose Taiwan’s evolution toward a full democracy. He opposed a referendum held in conjunction with the 2004 presidential election that expressed opposition to China’s missile buildup. In an infamous TV opportunity, Bush, standing next to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶), didn’t say a word about China’s missiles aimed at Taiwan, but lambasted President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) for wanting to let the people of Taiwan express themselves on this issue. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?
The Bush administration compounded its mistakes last year and this year when it launched a veritable campaign against Taiwan’s UN referendum — which was held concurrent with the presidential election in March — even with people like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressing “opposition” to the referendum.
What went wrong? For one thing, the US was preoccupied by Iraq and Afghanistan and let itself believe that it needed to accommodate China to resolve a number of other fires burning in the world: North Korea, Tibet, Burma, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
China was able to capitalize on the US’ desire to put out these fires, but at the same time kept them burning in order to gain more concessions from the US.
The Bush administration thus let itself be used by China to undermine democracy in Taiwan and put the future of the country in question. What is needed from a new US administration — whether it is led by Obama or his Republican rival John McCain — is a clear signal by the US that it will help defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese threat or attack. This is in the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act and we should stick to it.
We also need to emphasize the right of Taiwan to be a full and equal member in the international community. Any talk about only support for participation in organizations “that do not require statehood” undermines Taiwan’s position and is not befitting the US — a nation that portrays itself as the leader of the democratic world.
Both Taiwan and Georgia are examples of countries that have achieved democracy against great odds. If the US wants to expand democracy in the world, it needs to work harder to get these democracies into the mainstream of the international community. At the same time, it needs to convince the large — and less-than-democratic — neighbors that peace and stability can only be achieved if they let their small neighbors next door live and prosper in peace.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS