A few weeks ago there was an article by George Washington University professor Charles Glaser suggesting that the US should consider backing away from its commitments to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act. I wrote earlier why I didn’t agree with that proposition at all (“Charles Glaser’s fallacious arguments,” March 7, page 8).
Now comes a new report from the University of Virginia, titled A Way Ahead with China, outlining a number of conciliatory measures the US should consider in order to improve relations with China. The report is the product of a January conference at the university’s Miller Center of Public Affairs, which was chaired by Joseph Prueher, former US ambassador to China and a former commander of the US Pacific Command.
In the report, the authors say the US should take a “fresh look” at relations with Taiwan. Of course one should always be willing to take a “fresh look” at sensitive issues, but when we read further, this “fresh look” boils down to rethinking US arms sales and re-examining the complex relationship “in the layers of economy, politics and culture.”
The problem with this kind of thinking is that it puts the onus for the existing tensions on the US (for offering the arms to Taiwan) and on Taiwan (for wanting the arms to protect itself). The mistake the authors make is similar to that of Glaser: The idea that if we remove arms sales to Taiwan as an irritant in the US-China relations, then all will be well.
The authors of the report, like Glaser, fail to see that diminishing US support for Taiwan will only make China more aggressive toward the nation. Arms sales to Taiwan are not the real irritant to the Chinese. Taiwan’s existence as a free and democratic nation is what really bothers the authoritarian rulers in Beijing. It is a clear example that Asian people can live freely in a vibrant, multiparty political system.
“Democracy” is the real threat to Beijing, and we need to keep Taiwan free and democratic if we ever want China itself to make a transition to democracy.
So if we want to take a “fresh look” at relations with Taiwan, I would have a few different suggestions. We need to fully maintain our defense commitments to the nation and its people, but we need to upgrade our relations — and here I borrow a phrase from the Virginia report — “in the layers of economy, politics and culture.”
In terms of economic ties, there is an obvious opportunity: Let us start negotiating with Taiwan on a free-trade agreement. This has been in discussion for almost a decade, but no administration — Democrat or Republican — has had the political will to move forward on it. Taiwan is at the forefront of innovation, particularly in the information-technology industry. In its importance to the world economy, Taiwan ranks up there with Japan and South Korea.
However, the clearest need for a fresh look is at the political level. Owing to unfortunate events in history, Taiwan and its people ended up in the present limbo of political isolation. This isolation will not end if we continue to cling to an outdated status quo or if we succumb to Chinese pressure.
A peaceful resolution can only be found if we work toward normalization of relations with the nation and its people, so they can find their niche in the family of nations. The US and its West European allies need to be much more creative in helping to find a way forward for Taiwan to find its rightful place in the international community as a free and democratic nation. That would really be “a way ahead with Taiwan.”
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.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
RSS