Threat of force has its place
While I think it’s admirable, indeed imperative, that people of all political persuasions in Taiwan work toward a common consensus with regard to Taiwan-China relations, strict neutrality is not the way forward (“Neutrality is Taiwan’s best option,” Oct. 6, page 8).
Far from perfect is the situation that Taiwan finds itself in when we talk about the “status quo” in cross-strait relations. The status quo, unfortunately, is the best that Taiwan has at this juncture. It’s the security dynamic between China, Taiwan and the US that has fostered Taiwan’s de facto independence over the years. This fluid relationship is also, for the moment, the best way to maintain it. Changing Taiwan’s Constitution to renounce the use of force would fundamentally change this dynamic and could lead to further regional instability.
China has in excess of 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. This statement isn’t meant to stir pro-independence fervor, but rather to state facts as they stand. Without a concrete agreement in which China also renounces the use of force against its smaller neighbor, a constitutional change would be reckless regardless of Taiwan’s progress toward self-determination.
In effect, Taiwan would be inviting China to press its strategic advantage while at the same time bringing into question — at least from a US perspective — whether Taiwan is serious in defending its sovereignty.
Add to all this a global reconfiguration that is quietly but inexorably playing itself out as we speak. The US is still the world’s largest economy, with all the political and military clout that accompanies this. But Washington is paying the price for a largely unregulated financial system, bad debt and military over-reach.
At the same time, China and Russia are finding themselves increasingly able to assert pressure internationally. Does anyone really believe that, as things stand, the US is in a good position to guarantee Taiwan’s security? Recent events in Georgia, where the US seemed absolutely powerless to intervene, were instructive.
The weakening of the US already has the potential to upset the status quo in the region. A unilateral renouncing of force without a concomitant and binding response from China invites further destabilization. Whatever the way forward is for Taiwan, the answer does not lie in blindly putting faith in China’s goodwill and its opaque plans for Taiwan.
In an article in the Weekly Standard on Thursday, defense analyst Thomas Skypek reported that the US government was finally waking up to the threat posed by China’s “full court press to establish influence and connections in Africa and Latin America.” Here, yet again, is another unintended consequence of the US State Department’s failed policy of pursuing “good relations” with China at any cost. Will the State Department ever learn from its mistakes?
If the US had been more supportive of Taiwan in the eight years before President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, it is almost certain that fewer allies of Taiwan in Latin America and Africa would have recognized China. That would mean a balance of influence in these parts of the world.
One thing is certain: Any ally of Taiwan would not be in the pocket of China.
But what would result if the US began encouraging Latin American or African countries to recognize Taiwan?
First, China would cut ties, therefore losing influence with those countries.
Second, the countries would cease falling prey to China’s colonial exploitation and receive help from Taiwan that would see genuine improvements in quality of life — medical, agricultural or industrial. Such help would not have the gargantuan chains attached that China’s has.
Third, China’s corrupting and election-subverting authoritarian influences on these nations would be minimized.
Fourth, Taiwan’s democracy would become their model for the path to the future. Fifth, the US would not have to be directly involved in any of these allies’ affairs.
Of course, the US itself should recognize Taiwan. Then it could have a peace-loving, democracy-spreading partner, and this would be for the good of the world community.
The wagging tail
President Ma Ying-jeou was called “great President Ma” in sign language at a gathering to promote the 2009 Deaflympics in Taipei, and he enjoyed it. A Taipei City Government official called him “very great President Ma” as he opened the main gate of Taipei’s Confucius Temple to welcome the president like an emperor.
Ma has also been described as stupid on several occasions. A female senior high school student quoted a popular new saying — “A bad president is gone, here comes a stupid president” — and wondered what Taiwan would become by the time she graduates from college, according to the Liberty Times.
If Ma is so great, why is his approval rating so low? If Ma is so great, why is his administration so often called mediocre? If Ma is so great, how could he agree to abandon his presidential title — which more than 7 million voters presented to him — when a Chinese official visits Taiwan later this year?
People in Taiwan expect Ma to be as wise as any other Harvard graduate.
Sadly, to date, Ma has acted like a tail wagging for China: He has asked the Taiwanese media not to criticize China; he has enjoyed the fruits of democracy but worships dictatorship instead; he claimed to be Taiwanese during the election campaign but has been destroying Taiwanese identity ever since; he has done more for China’s leaders than for the Taiwanese people; and he even wants to serve for another term!
What will Taiwan become, indeed.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and