It is good that former US president Bill Clinton had an opportunity to visit Taiwan. The democratic nation’s political isolation has led to the peculiar phenomenon that only future and past US presidents — and secretaries of state or defense for that matter — can visit it.
But the matter raises an important question: Why can’t a current US president visit? The obvious reason is, of course, that China would strenuously object. Still, if our purpose is to support democracy in East Asia, it behooves the US to move toward normalization of relations with Taiwan.
US President Barack Obama just completed a tour through Asia in which he rightly emphasized strengthening ties with democracies in the region, such as India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan. He broke new ground by advocating a seat in the UN Security Council for India, the world’s most populous democracy.
That kind of out-of-the-box thinking is also required in US policies toward Taiwan. The US is presently stuck in a “one China” policy mantra tracing its root to the 1970s, when we had a situation in which two regimes both claimed to be the legitimate government of China. That was resolved by normalizing ties with China and establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing as the government of China. However, we did not define Taiwan’s status, except to say that its future needed to be determined by peaceful means.
Now we have a totally different situation: Taiwan has transformed itself into a fully free and democratic nation, and if we want it to maintain its democracy, we need to do more to pull it into the circle of democratic nations in Asia.
In this regard, Clinton could have helped. During his visit, he could have lauded the fact that the Taiwanese engineered a momentous transition to democracy under former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Sustaining this democracy is important, particularly in view of Taiwan’s current drift in China’s direction.
Clinton should also have ensured that his visit was truly bipartisan, from Taiwan’s perspective that is. Taiwan is in the middle of a heated election campaign for the five special municipalities. Statements favoring particular policies, such as the recently concluded Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China, should have been avoided, as that represented taking sides in a controversial domestic issue.
Clinton could have also helped by emphasizing that a democratic Taiwan fully deserves a place at the table in international organizations such as the UN and the WHO. Its exclusion from these organizations is an outdated artifact from the past. The great majority of Taiwanese want to see Taiwan become an active member in the international community.
Finally, Clinton could have helped by nudging Taiwan in the right direction when it comes to judicial reforms. Freedom House has documented cases of infringement on individual rights and lack of due process by police organizations and the judiciary, while international academics have pointed to flaws and bias in legal proceedings against Chen and other former Democratic Progressive Party officials. Indeed, Clinton could have echoed calls for judicial reforms made by New York law professor Jerome Cohen.
The US often says that it wants to stay true to its democratic principles and give meaning to the human rights that officials say are universal. The confluence of Obama’s trip to Asia with Clinton’s trip to Taiwan presented a historic opportunity to emphasize US determination to move Taiwan out of the political isolation imposed on it by an unfortunate twist of history, and bring it into the mainstream of the international community of nations.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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