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.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS