Over the past few years, it has become commonplace for US officials to praise the “stability across the Taiwan Strait,” presumably brought about by the cross-strait rapprochement initiated by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
For example, during an April 4 hearing in the US Senate, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel said: “As a general matter, we very much welcome and applaud the extraordinary progress that has occurred in cross-strait relations under the Ma administration.”
However, considering the broader picture, it is obvious that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has not pursued stability in the region, but on the contrary has become increasingly belligerent on a number of issues: differences with Japan over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), differences over territorial disputes with almost all nations bordering the South China Sea and most recently its mishandling of developments in Hong Kong over the procedure for the election of the territory’s chief executive in 2017.
In particular, Hong Kong provides a model for Taiwan: the repressive and undemocratic moves by Beijing show Taiwanese what would happen if the nation moved too close to China. The recent developments are a clear indication that rapprochement with Beijing on the basis of its current policies would be detrimental to Taiwan’s hard-won freedom and democracy.
How can the apparent contradiction be explained? An ostensibly benign and peaceful approach across the Taiwan Strait contrasted with an aggressive and much more assertive approach elsewhere?
The answer lies in the basic, but false, premise under which the current cross-strait rapprochement has taken place: The leaders in Beijing agreed to keep relations with Taipei on an even keel and proceed with a number of economic agreements because the Ma administration gave them the impression that this would gradually lead to unification.
However, those policies are now increasingly at odds with the aspirations of Taiwanese to remain free, defend their democracy and be a full and equal member of the international community.
Domestically, the KMT’s policies and actions have led to an erosion of democracy, as exemplified by a rather dysfunctional legislature and a judicial system that is too often prone to be used by the ruling party for political purposes, while the executive branch’s close ties with big business have also become increasingly apparent in various scandals.
Internationally, the Ma government and China have supposedly adhered to a “diplomatic truce” in which neither side would attempt to capture existing diplomatic recognition by third countries, but in reality, the PRC pushed hard to keep Taiwan from having any new diplomatic ties or any real representation in international organizations such as the WHO, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the UN.
Real stability across the Taiwan Strait can only be achieved if the leaders in Beijing understand that they need to accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbor, that they need to dismantle the more than 1,600 missiles aimed at the nation and that they need to agree to international space for Taiwan, so it can be a full and equal member in the international community.
The democratic Western nations can help bring about normalization of relations across the Taiwan Strait by moving to normalize their own diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The country’s diplomatic isolation was prompted by the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s, the KMT regime of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) perpetuated its outlandish claim to represent all of China. That was obviously not the case and led to the withdrawal of its international recognition.
However, since then, Taiwanese have made their momentous transition to democracy, so it is time to move away from old “one China” idea and move toward a new policy that accepts a vibrant democracy as a member of the international family of nations.
The Sunflower movement and Ma’s extremely low approval ratings clearly show that Taiwanese do not want to be pushed in the direction of a repressive China, but want to play a role in the global community.
Taiwanese at home and overseas want the nation to grow and flourish, but that can only happen if the country can play a full role internationally and not be hampered by restrictions imposed by an undemocratic regime next door, or by outdated “one China” policies in the West.
The US and other Western nations need to view Taiwan as a free democracy in its own right and move toward new policies that lead to normalization of relations with the nation. Only if Taiwan is accepted as a full and equal member by all its neighbors, including China, will there be true stability in the East Asia region.
Mark Kao is president of the Washington-based Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
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