At his year-end press conference on Friday last week, US President Barack Obama touched on a wide range of issues, from Russian hacking during the US presidential election, the civil war in Syria and impending fall of Aleppo, to the highly improved employment situation in the US.
For the people in Taiwan, his most memorable remarks came during the question-and-answer session, when Mark Landler of the New York Times asked him if he agreed that the US’ “one China” policy could use a fresh set of eyes and what was the big deal with having a short telephone call with the president of Taiwan.
In his answer, Obama actually started off alright: He acknowledged that “all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes,” that “America benefits from some new perspectives” and that “it is not just the prerogative, but the obligation of a new president to examine ... and see what makes sense and what doesn’t.”
However, he then dug himself into the old “one China” rabbit hole by elaborating how “there has been a long-standing agreement, essentially, between China, the United States and, to some degree, the Taiwanese, which is to not change the status quo.”
Obama then added: “Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they are able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy that they won’t charge forward and declare independence.”
In making this statement, Obama overlooks a pretty fundamental point: He fails to take into account that Taiwanese were not part of the “agreement.” It was made over their heads between Beijing and Washington, imposing on them a second-class status and international isolation.
Fortunately, between 1979 and now, Taiwanese forged a momentous transition to democracy, which does mean that they are now ready and able to take their place as a full and equal member in the international community.
The new “status quo” is that Taiwan functions with full autonomy and is for all intents and purposes a free, democratic and independent nation. The problem is of course that the US’ “one China” policy has not really kept up with new reality on the ground.
So, instead of clinging to vague concepts and fuzzy understandings dating back to the 1970s — arrived at over the heads of Taiwanese — why does the US (and western Europe) not start thinking of a way to normalize relations with Taiwan and thereby move toward more sustainable peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait?
It is essential for the US and western Europe to start seeing Taiwan in its own light and in its own right: a free and open democracy, a vibrant and innovative economy, and a strategically important partner in the East Asia region.
Mr Obama: This is really change we can believe in.
The problem is also that China is now challenging the “new status quo” in the Taiwan Strait by trying to isolate Taiwan even further and by threatening military moves if Taiwan does not fall into line.
For China it is important to move toward a new mindset and stop looking at Taiwan as a piece of unfinished business dating from the Chinese Civil War.
Beijing should take advantage of this window of opportunity and start working toward a positive and constructive relationship across the Taiwan Strait in which the two nations would work toward the normalization of relations and eventually recognize each other as friendly neighbors.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat and former editor of Taiwan Communique who now teaches History of Taiwan at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virgina.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS