After the end of World War II, countries around the world set about building collective security structures for joint defense, and this was the main purpose of the establishment of the UN.
Military alliances, defense partnerships and other platforms for cooperation between nations were very important during the Cold War to prevent and resist aggression from third countries. They cannot be neglected in the post-Cold War period, either.
An indication of the continued need for such alliances is a statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Informal Meeting of NATO foreign ministers in the Estonian capital, Tallinn, on April 23, emphasizing that the US had no intention of withdrawing tactical nuclear weapons deployed at its Air Force bases in Europe. European opinions about the US’ global strategic deployment may vary considerably, but, in consideration of collective security, no European nation would go to the extent of demanding that the US pull out of joint defense structures.
The Asia-Pacific region has no fewer potential flashpoints of instability than Europe and the threats to its security are no less complex. Even though nobody knows how regional balances of power in Northeast and Southeast Asia will be maintained in the future, or for how long, the only leader in the world who would say that he flat-out refuses US defense assistance is President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — and he made his point using a very decisive word: “Never.”
It must be borne in mind that Taiwan is not a member of the UN, so it is not qualified to join any international joint defense agreements. As things stand, it can only attach itself to the periphery of existing collective security mechanisms. That means that the only guarantee of Taiwan’s security is its unspoken military agreement with the US. Besides, at present the only country that poses a direct threat to Taiwan’s security is China.
That means that there can only be one explanation for Ma’s outright refusal of US military assistance: He has decided to bind Taiwan and China together in an unbreakably close relationship and to use his term in office to speed up the process of eventual unification.
In other words, when Ma said during an interview with CNN that he would never ask the US to fight for Taiwan, his true face was revealed for all to see. Ma’s interpretation of Taiwan’s status is clear.
While he is president, his strategy is not just to actively lean in China’s direction, but to bring forward the day when Taiwan will be a part of China. In Ma’s mind, what belongs to China belongs to China, and the US can mind its own business.
Although Ma has said time and again that he will never sell out Taiwan, his use of the word “never” in the CNN interview really gave the game away. No longer can one merely suspect that Taiwan’s sovereignty is in peril — it has now been proven beyond doubt that Ma is hell-bent on selling Taiwan down the river.
Steve Wang is an advisory committee member of Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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