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.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and