It has become commonplace for Western observers to applaud the current rapprochement across the Taiwan Strait and praise the “relaxation of tension” it has brought. One example is the statement by Peter Lavoy, the acting US assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs, at the US House of Representatives’ hearing entitled “Why Taiwan Matters” on Oct. 4.
“We welcome these initiatives [by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government] and the relaxation of tension in the Taiwan Strait that has accompanied the improvement of cross-strait relations,” Lavoy said.
However, a closer analysis shows a picture that is perhaps less rosy. Looking at the broader picture, China has been more belligerent recently on issues such as the South China Sea and the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) and has hardly been cooperative when it comes to reining in repressive regimes such as those in Iran and Syria. So much for being a responsible stakeholder.
So, has China really been “reducing tension” when it comes to Taiwan? In my view, this is a false perception: Reality shows that the leadership in Beijing, and certainly the People’s Liberation Army, has become quite aggressive vis-a-vis its much smaller neighbors
It is perhaps “softer” on Taiwan because it feels that the present course of relations is conducive to its goals of nudging the country into its economic and political orbit. In other words, it is not making waves about Taiwan because it feels that the country is already moving toward “unification.”
However, is this what Taiwanese want? They have worked hard for their democracy and are not about to give that up in favor of incorporation in, or association with, a repressive China. They like good relations with Beijing, but at a safe distance.
In the view of many in Taiwan, the present approach leads to something that is “too close for comfort.”
Opinion polls in Taiwan have shown that people support the “status quo,” which in practical terms means they are a free and democratic nation that elects its own president and parliament. Taiwanese do lament the political isolation into which they have been pushed and expect that their international space can be increased over time.
However, what do they really want in the long term? An opinion poll by TVBS in February was — inadvertently perhaps — very enlightening on this point. To the question: “If the choice exists, would you want Taiwan to become an independent nation or to be unified with China?” 68 percent of respondents chose Taiwanese independence, while 18 percent preferred unification with China, with the remainder having no opinion.
So the question becomes: Does the US want Taiwanese to have freedom of choice? If the US remains faithful to its principles of democracy and adherence to the concept of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter, then the answer is “Yes.”
For that to happen, the US needs policies that are not based on a false sense of short-term relaxation in tensions, but rather ones that lay the groundwork for long-term stability based on mutual respect and recognition, respect for Taiwan’s democracy as a basis for its decisionmaking and recognition of Taiwan’s existence as a free and democratic nation.
A prime objective of US policy should be to establish the conditions for a fully free and open choice for Taiwanese regarding their future. The US needs to do more than the piecemeal, hesitant approach it has been following until now.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Local media reported earlier this month that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) criticized President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for referring to China as a “neighboring country,” saying that this is no different from a “two-state” model and that it amounts to changing the cross-strait “status quo.” I find it quite impossible to understand why civilized Taiwan continues to tolerate the existence of such a deceitful group that believes its own lies. The relationship between Taiwan and China is the relationship between two countries, and neither has any jurisdiction over the other — this is the undeniable “status quo.” Those who believe in the
On Thursday, China applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) — a regional economic organization whose 11 member countries have a combined GDP of US$11 trillion. That is less than China’s 2019 GDP of US$14.34 trillion, so why is China so eager to join? China says there are two main reasons: To consolidate its foreign trade and foreign investment base, and to fast-track economic and trade relations between China and member countries of the CPTPP free-trade area. China’s bilateral trade with these countries grew from US$78 billion in 2003 to US$685.1 billion last year, mostly because of China’s 2005
US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) talked on the telephone on Thursday last week, the first time the two leaders have done so since Biden assumed the presidency. While each side sought to put their own gloss on the content of the conversation, some common ground did emerge. Biden reportedly said that both sides have a joint responsibility to ensure that competition between the US and China does not spiral into conflict and that there is no reason that the two nations are destined to fall into this trap. The day after the phone call, the Financial Times reported
WASHINGTON [Special Commentary]: It is just a teensy-weensy change, a change of one little syllable. It is barely noticeable unless you’re watching really carefully: The Tai-“pei” Representative Office in Washington, D.C. (TECRO) could soon change its name — just ever so very slightly — to Tai-“wan” Representative Office. The office’s “TECRO” initials would remain the same. It will be only a symbolic change. London’s Financial Times reported last week that such a change may soon be coming. The timing was a bit awkward, though. The FT’s report came out on the very same day that Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu (吳釗燮)