It has been a couple of weeks since Oct. 4, when the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, held a hearing titled “Why Taiwan Matters.” A good moment to do a retrospective.
That the hearing took place at all is significant in itself. It certainly is an antidote against the noise from academic circles to the effect that support for Taiwan in Congress is waning, or suggestions by some academics in ivory towers that the US should reduce its commitments to Taiwan.
On the contrary, the hearing showed strong support for Taiwan and its democracy from both sides of the aisle: Across the board, Republicans and Democrats emphasized that Taiwan deserves more support from the US than it is getting presently. Members of the Committee unanimously criticized the administration of US President Barack Obama for not going ahead with the sale of F-16C/Ds, arguing that this is leading to a dangerous imbalance of airpower across the Taiwan Strait.
It is also significant that many members were unhappy that outdated, self-imposed guidelines prevent senior US officials from meeting their Taiwanese counterparts and prohibit high-level Taiwanese officials from visiting the US capital. The chair of the subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, US Congressman Don Manzullo, said: “It is time to end the ridiculous policy that high-level officials cannot visit Washington.” He added that cruel and autocratic regimes like that in Burma receive better treatment in Washington.
This sentiment is valid. These restrictive guidelines were established in the early 1980s, when Taiwan was ruled by autocratic rulers. Since then, the nation has gone through a momentous democratic transition and now has leaders who have been democratically elected. Is it not time to change our rules and enable better, and more direct, communication between US government officials in Washington and Taiwan’s elected leaders?
So Congress is certainly concerned over the mixed signals being sent by the administration. US Congressman David Rivera emphasized this in his statement during the Oct. 4 hearing. He said that Taiwan was being threatened by a China that is the enemy of democracy and freedom and that it was essential to send a clearer, more supportive message to the people of Taiwan.
This is especially important in the run-up to the presidential and legislative elections in Taiwan in January next year. The US needs to ensure that China respects the outcome of those elections, especially if Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) wins. Especially so after China’s recent veto of sanctions against the Syrian government for suppressing the will of their people.
We might see a replay of 1996, when China fired missiles at Taiwan during the first-ever democratic election for a president in Taiwan. That crisis could have been prevented if the administration of then-US president Bill Clinton had made it clear at an earlier stage that China’s sabre-rattling was not acceptable.
As I have argued before, Taiwan is now a democracy, and if we want democracy to flourish in East Asia, the US needs to support and strengthen that democracy, instead of neglecting it and letting it wither in the corner of diplomatic isolation.
Nat Bellocchi served as US ambassador to Botswana and is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. 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