What is left of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) still does not want to see Taiwan succeed. It has tried to put a damper on the telephone call from President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to US president-elect Donald Trump, warning Tsai not to allow herself to become a pawn in Washington’s chess game, and to learn the lessons of the limitations of the nation’s expectations from the era of its dealings with former US president Ronald Reagan.
However, the KMT’s note of caution does not ring true and its warnings fail to get to the root of the problem.
The truth is that Taiwan has always played the US, too. When Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) was in power, he ensured Taiwan’s security by using the US to resist China, and pro-localization governments have used the US to prevent the forced annexation of Taiwan by China.
It might be more accurate to say that Taiwan and the US are actually playing the same game of chess, on the same side. They both stand to gain from winning.
That nations play other nations off each other is a given in international relations. During the Cold War, the US blocked the expansion of communist forces by forming alliances with Asia-Pacific nations — including the anti-communist Chiang regime in Taiwan.
That is why then-Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) called Chiang a “lackey of US imperialism.”
However, Mao, as well as former Chinese leaders Zhou Enlai (周恩來) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), all chose to ally with the US and Japan against Russia by forming semi-alliances. Did that make them “lackeys of US imperialism” too?
Since Chiang and his gang are gone, the Chinese have now shifted their attention to attacking pro-independence advocates as “lackeys of US imperialism.” This, at the same time as many are quietly sending vast amounts of money, as well as their families to the US. Are those Chinese not hiding in the homes of US imperialism more like lackeys?
Although the KMT has gotten what it deserves, it is merely accusing former US presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter of having sold out Taiwan. However, in reality, when the US formally withdrew its recognition of the Republic of China (ROC) government, it was the Chiang regime that sold out Taiwan by insisting on its claims to represent the whole of China. The KMT’s absurd hubris led to the US’ “one China” policy which has been harmful to Taiwan’s interests.
As for Reagan, he was unable to restore diplomatic relations between Taiwan and the US during his time in office simply because the time was not right, as the US and China had just established diplomatic ties in 1979, a mere two years before he took office in 1981.
Reagan’s secretary of state, Alexander Haig, was a deputy of former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the man who signed the 1972 Shanghai Communique with Beijing to recognize — but not endorse — the “one China” policy.
It should also be pointed out that there were valid reasons for Washington’s “allying with China against Russia” and Deng’s “allying with the US and Japan against Russia.”
Trump no longer needs to ally with China against Russia, and he might even do the opposite. Today, Chinese hegemony has exposed its ambition and brutality, despite international norms. This is more irritating to Washington.
More than half a century has passed since the signing of the communique, and it is difficult for Kissinger’s followers to find legitimate reasons to defend his “pro-China” policy.
James Wang is a senior journalist.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS