Real source of instability
The Miller Center of Public Affairs’ A Way Ahead with China: Steering the Right Course for the Middle Kingdom proposes the US and China build relations based on, among other things: “Stability; predictability; understanding of similarities and differences; candor, and ideally, trust.”
For the US-China dynamic to improve, the US should reassess its commitment to Taiwan since its “involvement with Taiwan is a frequent point of contention with the Chinese,” the report says.
This report disingenuously attributes the uncertainty of US-China relations to US support of Taiwan and implies that the US wastes political capital by assisting the “economically successful democratic institution” that is Taiwan, which will likely become absorbed by China as it “is slowly tending towards greater alignment with the Mainland” anyway.
Therefore, the US should focus less on whether increased integration between authoritarian China and democratic Taiwan promotes human rights and focus more on unconditionally pursuing the center’s “ideal US/China relationship” of “consistent, reliable responses on both sides.”
Actually, the US-China dynamic has been very “consistent.” In 1981, the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) insisted the US cease its arms sales to Taiwan. In 2005, Chinese General Zhu Chenghu (朱成虎) said: “If the Americans are determined to interfere we will be determined to respond” and “we ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”
Last year, in response to US President Barack Obama’s approval of US$6.4 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) said: “To the Chinese people, nothing is more important than safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has persistently defined the “reunification” of China and Taiwan as a “core interest.” Basically, the CCP will risk partial mutually assured destruction with the US in order to safeguard its legitimacy, largely dependent on the realization of its territorial ambitions and continued reversal of China’s “century of humiliation.”
Given the CCP thought process, is Taiwan the obstacle to peaceful, progressive US-China relations, or is the CCP the obstacle to peaceful, progressive US-Chinese, as well as cross-strait, relations?
In 1972, the US acknowledged having a “one China” policy. Former US president George W. Bush’s administration pointedly thanked the Chinese government for its conscientious response to the North Korean nuclear threat and overall support in the fight against terrorism. To emphasize parity in US-China engagement, the Obama administration has tempered its criticism of China.
The 1991 Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) charter sought to establish through a referendum, a Republic of Taiwan and a new constitution. In its 1999 Resolution on Taiwan’s Future, the DPP declared Taiwan already independent and sovereign, and that de jure independence was unnecessary.
The US and Taiwan’s compromises demonstrate goodwill toward China. The CCP now needs to prove its commitment to Zheng Bijian’s (鄭必堅) “peaceful rise” concept by evaluating the necessity and imagined benefits of its “one China” principle as well as its relentless diplomatic and military belligerence toward Taiwan.
SOPHIA SOLIVIO
Northampton, Massachusetts
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US