Heeding the Pentagon report
The Pentagon’s recent report on China’s military power raises US concerns regarding the modernization and strategic intentions of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) (“Pentagon warns on conceding to China,” March 27, page 1). Although the report said the PLA would not be able to deploy and sustain even small military units far beyond its borders before 2015, China is a regional power with global aspirations.
Double-digit growth in China’s military expenditures, coupled with the PLA’s participation in numerous international relief missions, are indications that China’s military is becoming professionalized and asserting a new role in the country’s foreign policy. As such, the PLA is geared toward developing an army that is capable of fighting and winning a short-duration conflict in the Taiwan Strait and deterring other countries from intervening.
Reserving the military option as a last resort, Beijing is pursuing a strategy that integrates political, economic, cultural and legal instruments of power.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) articulation of a “diplomatic truce” between Taipei and Beijing fits China’s strategy well because Taiwan has refrained from asserting itself on the international stage.
Ma has apparently given up on establishing diplomatic ties with more governments and at the same time has toned down Taiwan’s activities in the global arena.
Furthermore, although the president of Malawi expressed regret for switching diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China, the Taiwanese government has rejected his request to rebuild a relationship.
In addition, Ma modified the government’s UN campaign, foregoing last year’s opportunity to apply for UN membership and instead seeking meaningful participation in UN specialized agencies. Not surprisingly, China rebuked this proposal as well.
Ma has received praise from some international leaders for arguably ending so-called “checkbook diplomacy” and reducing cross-strait tension. Nevertheless, he should respond appropriately to actions by China that concern Taiwan’s international interests.
For instance, China’s road map for engagement with Taiwan was a focus of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s (溫家寶) address last month to the National People’s Congress. Ma did not, however, make any official response to Wen’s statement either to assert Taiwan’s position on joint economic cooperation or reaffirm the sovereignty of the Republic of China.
El Salvador, one of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, has recently expressed interest in forging formal ties with China, yet Ma has dismissed the possibility of dual recognition.
Dual recognition would be in the spirit of a diplomatic truce, as both China and Taiwan would observe the principle of “mutual non-denial,” refraining from denying each other’s existence.
Taiwan’s decision to accept dual recognition would, furthermore, demonstrate its goodwill.
As Taiwan does not have much leverage in cross-strait relations, it should take the initiative to permit its allies to recognize both Taiwan and China. This could earn Taiwan more recognition informally and formally.
With the discussion of Taiwan’s bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly (WHA) under way, Ma needs to keep national interests in mind.
Taiwan can participate in the WHA as a health entity — similar to its status in the WTO — rather than as an associate of China at the WHO. Otherwise, allowing the nation’s sovereignty to erode would be inconsistent with Ma’s policy of a diplomatic truce.
THOMAS CHOU
Seattle, Washington
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with