A look at the headlines of most newspapers yesterday was enough to make one break into a cold sweat over Taiwan’s prospects.
One headline said a US Department of Defense report concluded that China’s military expansion is continuing and that “The balance of cross-strait military forces continues to shift in [China’s] favor” while Taiwan’s defense capabilities remain disappointing.
The report also said China has raised the goal for its military expansion past Taiwan and is now aiming to match the US. In other words, should the People’s Liberation Army take action, not only would Taiwan be unable to resist, but it would be difficult for the US to assist Taiwan.
Another headline announced the legislature had passed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), despite the doubts of the public. Although the ECFA is only an economic agreement, it is symbolic of the qualitative change in cross-strait relations. With the signing of the ECFA, Taiwan will come to depend ever more heavily on China, and will have less power to make independent decisions. Taiwan has taken the first steps down the road of no return.
Given these two stories, it is very difficult to see how these developments indicate the success of the government’s cross-strait policies. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration have pushed their pro-China policies to increase cross-strait exchanges in an attempt to lower Beijing’s hostility toward Taiwan and maintain cross-strait peace and stability. The signing of the ECFA has improved commercial relations, but China’s military threat continues to grow. The Pentagon report underlines the security threat against Taiwan, and we can only hope Ma keeps the military imbalance in mind as he reads his own national security reports.
A look at Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) policy of ratcheting up China’s soft and hard power approaches to Taiwan shows that he has been very successful. The ECFA has been signed, and Chinese tour groups and purchasing delegations are flooding Taiwan. Taiwan has taken the bait, and will now have difficulty regaining the initiative. China’s soft approach has been successful.
If Taiwan refuses unification, China has its “Anti-Secession” law, which authorizes it to take military action. It has well over 1,500 missiles aimed at Taiwan, and it has the military power to seal off the region and block intervention. If Taiwan tries to get off the hook, it will be difficult to break through the Chinese military net. China’s hard power approach has also been successful.
While Ma continues to bask in the international glory of improved cross-strait relations, it is all too clear that Taiwan is facing a superior enemy. A peace built on a defenseless Taiwan is an illusion. China could change its approach at any time and for any reason, be it economic, political or military. Taiwan, however, is lowering its guard, and this is a crisis built into the ECFA.
The Ma administration’s biggest problem is its short-term approach and one-dimensional thinking — in pushing for the ECFA, it focused stubbornly on the pact’s advantages and refused to discuss or prepare for any negative impact. Through its pro-China policies, the government has made the livelihoods of all Taiwanese dependent on Beijing’s goodwill, and it has done so without a backup plan. It is very difficult to trust such a government with major responsibilities.
The legislature has been deprived of its ability to act as a control on the ECFA, and we must now hope that the public will be able to wake the government from its reveries.
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