In recent months, a number of Chinese apologists have made the case that “abandoning” Taiwan to China would help improve strategic cooperation between Washington and Beijing. In their view, Taiwan remains the last impediment to a flourishing relationship between the two giants, and therefore yielding to Beijing’s irredentist claims on Taiwan would somehow unlock a future of manifold promises and stability.
In the name of journalistic neutrality, this newspaper has given space for this argument and has allowed those who disagree with such a strategy to also make their case. However, facts alone suffice to discredit calls for the international community — and ultimately on Taiwanese themselves — to sacrifice Taiwan for a more constructive relationship with Beijing.
One need look no further than news over the weekend that Beijing prevented the release of a damning UN document on missile proliferation involving Iran and North Korea, as well as the possibility that China may have acted as a transshipment point for related prohibited technology.
In light of this development, how could any of the academics who made the case for abandoning Taiwan still argue that once the “Taiwan problem” is resolved, everything will be fine? North Korea, Iran and the proliferation of dangerous technology has nothing to do with conflict across the Taiwan Strait, and to put it mildly, it would be naive to assume that Beijing would become a more responsible stakeholder in a post-“Taiwan problem” scenario.
Why Beijing would reassess the utility of Iran and North Korea (and the other repressive regimes it props up) after unification with Taiwan is a question that none of the experts appear to have pondered seriously. The reality is, if Beijing no longer had to focus on a “Taiwan contingency,” it would be in a position to devote even more resources to other problematic areas, such as a border dispute with India, contested claims in the South China Sea — and yes, its support for dictatorial or nihilistic regimes, which, potentially as a result of Chinese assistance, are now in the possession of dangerous items such as nuclear technology and the means to deliver nuclear warheads.
A consequence of Beijing’s refusal to play by the rules is that deadly technology has landed in the hands of crackpot regimes, such as those in Tehran and Pyongyang. The risk then increases that this technology will be further proliferated, ending up in the arsenal of additional countries, or perhaps more alarmingly, in that of even less accountable non-state actors, including terrorist organizations. As a result, global security is undermined as a result of decades of proliferation on China’s part.
Anyone who has done business with China or any country that has been party to a bilateral or multilateral agreement with China knows by now that Beijing observes legal commitments in the breach. If, as the China apologists would argue, Taiwan is to be considered as mere business transaction, then one would logically assume that in exchange for goods, China would be expected to deliver a service, or commit to something. However, to act in the belief that China would respect its side of the contract is one hell of a gamble and history clearly shows us that Beijing would continue to selectively behave as per Western expectations.
If the past is any indication, sacrificing Taiwan in the hope that this point of contention, once eliminated, would bring China in from the cold, is beyond academic speculation: It is sheer stupidity.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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