I was struck by the juxtaposition of two articles in the Taipei Times a few days ago explaining the different mindsets of former US officials regarding the relationship with Beijing. In one article, former US ambassador to Beijing Jon Huntsman was quoted as saying that in its dealings with China the US “should be unafraid to articulate our values of liberty, democracy, human rights and a free market,” it will be stronger to do so and regret it when it does not (“US must rely on its values to face China: Huntsman,” July 19, page 3). Huntsman, who has lived in Taiwan, stated that Taiwan’s strengths are its people, its free society and its commitments to values.
In the other article former US national security advisor Stephen Hadley was quoted as saying that “a lot of the heat” had gone out of what he called “the Taiwan issue,” while former US Treasury secretary Henry Paulson outlined five “key principles” he said the US must adopt in its relations with China (“Much heat has gone out of Taiwan issue: Hadley,” July 19, page 3).
Let us first focus on Hadley’s remarks. He acknowledged that China was becoming more assertive and even quoted one Chinese leader who told him that the present “status quo” was arrived at “when we were weak,” implying that they felt the modus vivendi needed to be changed now that China is strong.
As I have argued before, Beijing is perhaps “softer” on Taiwan because it feels that the present course of relations is conducive to its goals of nudging Taiwan into its economic and political orbit. It is not making waves about Taiwan because it feels that it is already moving toward “unification.” (“US needs to help protect a free choice in Taiwan,” Nov. 9, 2011, page 8).
However when Beijing realizes that its designs for Taiwan are colliding with the values of liberty, democracy, human rights and a free market, it will create another round of severe tension, to say the least.
Hadley also stated that another issue is coming up frequently now, and that it is “bigger than Taiwan:” the South China Sea. To be sure, how the US manages the conflict in the South China Sea will test the degree of US commitment to its democratic friends and allies in the region. However, while I would agree that the South China Sea is an important issue affecting the sea lanes and the interests of the surrounding countries, there are very few people living there. So, in my view, that was an unfortunate choice of words as Taiwan is at least as important, as it directly affects the lives of 23 million people who have worked long and hard to achieve their democracy.
In terms of Paulson’s remarks, he elaborated on five “key principles” for the US to adopt in its dealings with China: greater openness to Chinese investment in the US; more transparent markets with strong oversight; strengthened market confidence in both economies; freeing up of bilateral trade and more efficient technology flow to promote innovation. He also said that Taiwan’s continued existence is very important to the US.
What is missing from Paulson’s “principles” is any reference to the basic values highlighted in Huntsman’s remarks. Paulson avoids any discussion of the political situation in China and totally skips over the basic problems facing Chinese society: the lack of adequate checks and balances in the political system, the rampant corruption, the totally inadequate judicial system and one could go on and on. These problems need a very dedicated effort, so there is a level playing field. Not just “business as usual” as Paulson’s comments imply.
While Paulson and Hadley may believe in what Huntsman says, both need to inject more of what the US stands for in terms of its values of liberty, democracy and human rights. Those are prerequisites for a sound and healthy long-term relationship, both with Taiwan and with the Peoples Republic of China.
Huntsman has a clear vision, understandably presents a broad picture of what is going on in the region, and has prioritized what to do about it.
Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 through 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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
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
RSS