Taiwan’s place
Dennis Hickey (Letters, May 30, page 8) criticizes Gerrit van der Wees for ignoring reality, spreading misinformation and playing the role of a “great white father” to Taiwanese (“US will continue to support Taiwan,” May 16, page 8). In fact, it is Hickey who has an unrealistic perception of the situation in Taiwan and who approaches the situation with colonial arrogance.
Hickey’s argument that it is advisable for the US to abandon its commitment to Taiwan ignores several very important realities.
First, and most importantly, Hickey chooses to ignore the desires of the overwhelming majority of the 23 million people in Taiwan who have no desire to become a part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). It is clear that in his role of great white father, Hickey does not place any value in the opinions of Taiwanese. This is arrogant and foolish. Hickey, looking through his rose-colored glasses and ignoring all public opinion data from Taiwan, hopes that Taiwanese will simply acquiesce to Chinese pressure and bow down to Beijing, because that is what Hickey thinks is more convenient. It is dangerous to base US policy toward Taiwan and China on what one hopes Taiwanese will do. Instead, policymakers must develop a sound understanding of the political realities in Taiwan and form policies in accordance with those realities.
Second, although Hickey loosely tosses in the term “everyone knows” to try to make his point, there are actually quite a few academics and policymakers who understand that Taiwan plays an important economic and strategic role in Asia. Does Hickey truly believe that the PRC so desperately wants to absorb Taiwan only because of its questionable historical claim to the island? Of course the PRC sees strategic value to the island and if Beijing sees this, the US must consider the strategic implications of Taiwan losing its independence.
Finally, in pointing to the importance of the PRC, Hickey grossly underestimates the contributions that Taiwan can make to the world community. Taiwan has a large and advanced economy, a strong democracy, an open society, an impressive healthcare system and a diverse and fascinating culture. Taiwanese have the ability to make incredible contributions to global development by sharing their resources and expertise in the areas of health, environment, economics and human rights. Unfortunately, Taiwanese are typically excluded from opportunities to make these contributions because of pressure from the PRC.
It is time for people like Hickey to develop more sound policy based on a well-informed understanding of political realities in Taiwan, to understand the strategic value of the island and to understand the contributions that Taiwanese can make to the international community. Until then, advice such as Hickey’s, based on a flimsy foundation and wishful thinking, can only contribute to poorly constructed and potentially dangerous policy.
I am puzzled why Hickey, who seems to view Beijing as a responsible stakeholder in the international community, doesn’t view as prudent an effort to convince Beijing that Taiwanese simply have no desire to unify with China. Perhaps Beijing could be convinced that allowing full self-determination for the people of Taiwan would eliminate the potential for war and allow for positive economic exchanges across the Taiwan Strait.
Don Rodgers
Sherman, Texas
I would like to respond to Dennis Hickey’s letter (Letters, May 30, page 8), which abusively criticizes Gerrit van der Wees’ assessment of US-Taiwan relations (“US will continue to support Taiwan,” May 16, page 8). First, there is the ad hominem attack linking van der Wees to the colonial mentality of “great white fathers,” or those going “native.” Does Hickey excuse himself from such a category even though he is an academic and seeming defender of Beijing? His argument is reminiscent of righteously accusing one’s enemy of original sin. Isn’t he telling Taiwan what to do? The difference between the two is that van der Wees stands for the principles of Taiwan’s self--determination, its democracy and its refusal to succumb to China’s policies.
Second, Hickey denigrates Taiwan’s democracy. He declares that Taiwan’s democracy “has little or no strategic value to the US.” What he says here is very dangerous. He is creating a new standard for US foreign policy. Strategic value is the standard for US recognition — not democratic government.
He also suggests that the authoritarian government in China is a better ally in dealing with current global problems than democratic governments would be. His faith in China resembles that of a true believer.
What Hickey disregards is the possibility of reforms in China. In a recent radio dialogue between Chinese and US citizens, there was a great expression of support for Taiwan’s democratic processes. Taiwanese democracy is an important beacon for change in China. If China were not afraid of democratic reforms, why is it increasing its surveillance of students and arresting or detaining human rights activists? Hickey’s policy would result in further supporting China’s crackdown on those who wish for a democratic system such as Taiwan’s.
Third, we are told that the US should support China and abandon Taiwan’s democracy and independence because China’s economy is growing and it holds US debt. Actually, Japan holds nearly as much US debt as China, and Canada holds a significant share too. Maybe the US should just move its Department of State into offices in Beijing, Tokyo and Ottawa. Does Hickey believe that the US will never improve its economy? Are we to assume that the US will forever owe loyalty to Beijing?
Based on his analysis, the US has no way out of the economic, military and global stranglehold of China. To stand up for the US’ democratic Asian friends in Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and India is, in his words, “ignoring the world around us and how it has changed.”
If van der Wees has a “love for Taiwan,” its democracy, its independence, then we must ask what Hickey has a love for. On the other hand, I do not want to know.
Richard Kagan
St Paul, Minnesota
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and