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
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS