At a seminar at the Heritage Foundation in Washington last week, former American Institute in Taiwan Washington office managing director Barbara Schrage spoke about US-Taiwan relations since the nine-in-one elections in November last year.
She described the outcome of the elections as a political landslide for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and a major defeat for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). She said that this outcome showed the strength of Taiwan’s democracy and that this would increase the US’ commitment to the nation’s safety and security.
She continued by saying that as Taiwan is a democracy, it would not be appropriate for the US to interfere. However, she then said that the DPP needed to formulate a China policy, adding that “vague formulations” would not suffice.
It is peculiar that she accused the DPP of “vague formulations,” while the present so-called “1992 consensus” is an extremely opaque concept that has many different interpretations. If Schrage were evenhanded and fair-minded, she should also discuss the vagueness of the “1992 consensus.”
It is also rather incomprehensible that Schrage implores the DPP to “reduce the differences between the two sides.” Such a statement fails to take into account the uncompromising position taken by Beijing, which has set acceptance of the so-called “one China” principle as a precondition for any negotiations.
In recent statements at the National People’s Congress, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) negated even the “1992 consensus” by emphasizing only “one China” and rejecting any “different interpretations.”
However, Schrage really crossed the line when, in the question-and-answer session, she commented on the September 2011 visit of DPP Chairperson and then-presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), criticizing her for emphasizing the (democratic) “process” and not a “specific outcome.”
Schrage said that the US administration had wanted to hear her specific plans for managing cross-strait relations, adding: “Frankly speaking, she was disappointing in that area.”
In its own policies toward Taiwan, the US only talks about “process”: It emphasizes that in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US insists on a “peaceful process,” and that there is a democratic process, in which decisions on the nation’s future should be made with the consent/assent of the people of Taiwan.
The US has never suggested any specific outcome, saying that it supports neither unification nor independence. It has also said that Taiwan’s current status is undetermined (in accordance with the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty), but emphasizes that its future status needs to be determined peacefully, without outside interference.
So it feels somewhat ironic that Schrage faults Tsai for doing precisely what the US is doing.
Of course, everyone wants to avoid tension with Beijing. As Taiwanese-Americans, we are confident that — when elected in January next year — a DPP government will play a constructive role in maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
However, the US must stand clearly on the side of democracy and freedom in Taiwan, and ensure that Taiwanese can make a free choice on their future. There is no room for ambiguity.
Indeed, comments from people like Schrage should focus on convincing Beijing to present a formula that can “narrow its differences with Taiwan.”
Taiwanese cherish their democracy, wish to maintain their freedom and want to be accepted as a full and equal member in the international family of nations.
Mark Kao is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese-American organization based in Washington.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if