The government is asking the public not to“overinterpret” its negligent handling of the disaster relief effort in southern Taiwan and its initial rejection of foreign aid before accepting US assistance.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), however, insists that US assistance is a sign of restored trust between Taiwan and the US.
The unspoken implication, of course, is that if former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his administration had still been in power, the US would have stood by and watched Taiwanese die.
Such farfetched conclusions only prove that it is part of Ma’s character to take credit for other people’s achievements while shirking responsibility for his mistakes. “They” don’t want the rest of us to interpret the significance of the US’ disaster relief assistance, because that could put the spotlight on government negligence and incompetence, separate Taiwan’s friends from its enemies and make China lose face.
The US’ actions and a number of phrases used by its officials, such as “humanitarian assistance” and assisting “the Taiwanese people,” as well as a statement that there is “no need to inform China,” highlight the significance of this assistance.
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) stipulates that the US shall “resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan,” making it a matter of legal implementation. The US does not recognize Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China, so it does not have to inform China of its actions.
The US’ disaster aid gives a clear response to the question of who Taiwan’s friends and enemies really are.
The US makes no territorial claims on Taiwan, and the TRA provides unilateral protection for Taiwan’s security and well-being, while China wishes to annex Taiwan, with its “Anti-Secession” Law threatening the use of force.
The government’s negligence included waiting until Aug. 13 before it asked for US assistance.
The next day, US aircraft landed in Taiwan in a display of the US’ organizational capabilities and highlighting the Taiwanese government’s incompetence and inability to understand that US helicopters could not fly from Guam or Japan to Taiwan.
By making this preposterous suggestion, Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) showed he has no grasp of how the US carries out disaster relief in the region.
The US’ display was also a show of strength as far as China’s military was concerned. If the US could mobilize so quickly for disaster relief efforts, then of course it could do the same in the event of conflict.
Ma relies heavily on the legacy of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), but doesn’t understand that it was the US’ military capabilities that saved Chiang’s skin in August 1958.
The Nationalist army on Kinmen could not compete with China’s firepower, so the US sent in eight-inch guns, which arrived on Sept. 19, finally giving the army the firepower to respond to the bombardment.
The significance of the US’ disaster aid does not lie in mutual trust.
Instead, it proves the folly of the government’s policy to move closer to China and distance itself from the US.
The TRA allows the US to assist Taiwan, and the US is the friend that will help to protect Taiwanese freedom and democracy.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS