In an opinion piece this week, London-based magazine The Economist said leaders in Beijing have a “bottom line” and are now warning Taiwan — in the run-up to next year’s presidential elections — to adhere to the so-called “one China” principle or otherwise tensions might rise again.
The problem with The Economist’s analysis is that it takes the current “seven years of calm” as a norm, and does not ask how it came about. This “calm” represents an artificial absence of tension, which came about because President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration gave the Chinese leadership the erroneous impression that — under his leadership — Taiwan would move toward unification with China.
This approach is regrettably very much akin to former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasing “peace in our time” with Hitler in 1938, and has been rejected by Taiwanese: Ma has a popularity rating of less than 10 percent.
Recent developments — the Sunflower movement, and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) drubbing in last year’s elections — have shown very clearly that Taiwanese value their freedom and democracy, and do not want to be pushed into a closer economic or political embrace with China.
The general sense among the public is that Ma’s “rapprochement” with China was inescapably leading toward a “too-close-for-comfort” relationship, which would deprive Taiwanese a free and democratic choice over their future.
So, the question The Economist should really have asked is this: “What is Taiwan’s bottom line?” The answer to that is threefold.
One, Taiwanese have fought hard to gain their freedom and democracy. They achieved a momentous transition to democracy under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in the early 1990s. That achievement is a core Taiwanese value, that is also a shared by the US and other Western democracies.
Two, Taiwanese highly value regional security and stability, but not if it is achieved at the expense of the nation’s sovereignty. History shows that giving in to expansive powers — whether in Europe in 1938 or in Asia next year — never achieves true stability.
Three, China can only have a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with Taiwan — and its other neighbors — if it respects them and treats them equally as friendly neighbors, and refrains from treating them as tributaries.
At the end of its analysis, The Economist also mentions the US, saying that “America is probably anxious,” as it does not want to be seen in Taiwan as interfering in the politics of a fellow democracy, but that it also “doesn’t want to be sucked into a conflict that might erupt should China lose patience.”
The role of the US is indeed a crucial one: It needs to be strongly supportive of Taiwan’s democracy, and make it possible for Taiwanese to make a free choice on their future. This means that the US needs to observe the utmost neutrality in these elections, and allow an open and democratic process to play itself out.
It also means that the US government needs to prevail on Beijing to accept Taiwan as it is, and allow it to become an equal member of the international community. This is the only way there will be long-term peace and stability in the region.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS