On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) director Richard Bush published an article in the China Times on April 9 saying that the US’ commitment to Taiwan’s security is based on the premise of a shared strategic view held between the two countries. Bush also said Taiwan’s democratization and China’s rise are the two key factors interfering with the maintenance of a common Taiwan-US view of strategy.
His first comment shows how laws that are treated like policies can change over time. His second comment shows that he views self-awareness and self-determination brought by Taiwan’s democracy as key factors that interfere with the US and Taiwan sharing common strategic viewpoints.
We have to ask whether the TRA depends on a consistent US-Taiwan strategy and whether the US would alter its policies to suit its interests, which would mean that its commitment as stated in the TRA would no longer exist unless Taiwan also altered its policies.
Under former US presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the US repeatedly redefined its China strategy. At the time of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the US viewed China as a butcher. Later, the US viewed it as a strategic partner, then a competitor and even a responsible stakeholder. Will the US’ commitment to Taiwan change because of its China policies? This is the risk when laws are treated as policies.
Although the former AIT director said that there were two key factors interfering with the two countries’ strategic views, he seems to believe that Taiwan’s democracy is mostly to blame because it has given rise to national recognition within Taiwan and concepts of a secure future. This view of Taiwan’s democratization as a problem, and not a means to a solution, is common among the “China experts” in Washington.
The former AIT director said that as China’s national strength grows, the US and China share more interests and that he was worried Taiwan’s democracy would challenge the basic interests of the People’s Republic of China and obstruct Sino-US cooperation. These “China experts” saw former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) insistence on national recognition as destructive to the “status quo,” and view Taiwan’s democratization as running counter to the “one China” principle.
Richard Bush — who is close to US President Barack Obama’s administration — is revealing Washington’s eagerness to get rid of Taipei to make room for Beijing. In the Martial Law era, he associated and sympathized with opposition parties in Taiwan. But with statements like his, it is frightening to imagine the attitude of other “China experts.”
From the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), the agreement signed by him and his Taiwanese counterpart Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), we can see how President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has oppressed freedom and democracy in the name of promoting cross-strait relations. Bush’s article also explains why AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt endorses Ma’s government on behalf of Washington even as Taiwan’s freedom and democracy are regressing.
Will Taiwan’s democracy collapse and the country be annexed by China because of misconduct by the Ma administration and encouragement and tolerance from the Obama administration?
There are many examples of democracy being quashed throughout history. Taiwanese need to maintain a critical view of these “China experts” and make their own decisions.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS