A week after Typhoon Morakot wreaked havoc in southern Taiwan, US Marine helicopters landed here for the first time since the US switched political recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979.
The helicopters are stationed at the US military base in Okinawa, Japan — less than 1,000km from Taiwan — yet they needed eight days to get here, thus missing the critical 72-hour post-disaster window.
This was the result of steadfast accommodation of Beijing’s “one China” principle by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration and their refusal to accept US aid, which potentially sacrificed hundreds of lives. Although the government has now accepted US assistance, new problems are emerging.
During a US State Department press briefing on Aug. 11, Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley said the US could use its assets in the Asia-Pacific region to assist Taiwan and cited the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, in which the US was able to respond to the tragedy in Indonesia in a timely manner.
But Crowley said he would defer to the Pentagon in terms of what the government might deploy. This suggests that at the time, the US was disposed to sending forces in the Pacific to provide aid in the same way it did in response to the Sumatra-Andaman Islands disaster.
The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group was sent to waters off the Indonesian island of Sumatra in support of the rescue and relief effort in the aftermath of the tsunami. Since all roads to badly hit Aceh Province were cut off, a strong US airlift, search and rescue mission, as well as investigative operations, provided vital aid to Indonesia.
As initial rescue efforts depended on airlifts, the Abraham Lincoln played a crucial role in directing and coordinating air missions. The US also pointed out later that the command, control, communications and intelligence systems of the super-carrier provided crucial assistance within the first 72 hours of the tsunami — the period of time when it was urgent to identify areas in need of evacuation.
The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and Japan’s Interchange Association are the only two de facto embassies in Taiwan with branch offices in Kaohsiung, so they understood how seriously the typhoon devastated southern areas. Had the AIT’s Kaohsiung branch not reported to Washington on the disaster, the State Department, which has stuck to the “one China” policy, would not have expressed its willingness to deploy the military to join the rescue effort because of the sensitivity of US-Taiwan relations.
Incompetent but mindful of the “one China” principle, the Ma administration was acutely aware of the military implications. Reports say that Taiwan’s National Security Council (NSC) suggested that the government turn down US aid and not call for international assistance until after receiving donations from China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait.
The government’s attempt to curry favor with China could thus have been the major cause of delays in the rescue effort. With this, the 72-hour window closed and countless people died.
Taiwan’s emergency response system is in chaos. The rescue effort suffered from delayed coordination with the US military because of the NSC, which opposed US aid because of its adherence to the “one China” principle. The NSC may now have trouble coordinating high-level communications between Taiwan and the US after doubts were aired by the State Department.
Thus, the arrival of the US military rescue team in Taiwan marks the beginning of more problems for the government.
Lai I-chung is director of foreign policy studies at Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS