On June 12, Panama announced that it was switching diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China.
The following day, the US Department of State’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs spokeswoman, Grace Choi, issued a statement via e-mail to some media outlets saying: “The United States continues to oppose unilateral actions by either side to alter the status quo across the [Taiwan] Strait.”
This is something that US officials have said countless times. Since it is consistent US policy, Taiwan has always been cautious when it comes to issues that are routine in other democracies, such as referendums or constitutional amendments, so as not to be labeled a “troublemaker.” However, in wanting to avoid trouble, the US has often put Taiwan in an embarrassing situation with regard to its autonomy, or right to speak or act.
In contrast, the US has selectively tolerated Chinese unilateral changes to the cross-strait “status quo,” watching as the Chinese bully pretends to play a civilized game of moral persuasion.
As a result, after completing its land reclamation at the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) early last year and the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島) in the middle of this year, China built large aircraft hangars on Fiery Cross Reef (Yongshu Reef, 永暑礁), as well as underground storage sites, missile platforms at the south end of the reef, a communication surveillance system at the northeast end and various radar/communications facilities across the islet. It also constructed hangars, underground storage sites, bomb shelters, radar/communications facilities and a high-frequency “elephant cage” antenna array for signals intelligence on Subi Reef (Zhubi Reef, 渚碧礁).
Given China’s constant altering of the “status quo” in the South China Sea, how can the cross-strait “status quo” remain unchanged?
On Dec. 7, Taiwanese F-16 jets detected a Chinese military aircraft close to Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ). When the F-16 pilot asked the Chinese aircraft to leave, the Chinese pilot responded by identifying himself as a People’s Liberation Army Air Force pilot and told the Taiwanese fighter to leave immediately or face the consequences.
On Monday, China sent another five aircraft over the Bashi Channel to the West Pacific Ocean, and then returned to their base via the Miyako Strait. Japan and South Korea scrambled jets to monitor the situation. China used to conduct these drills around Taiwan only occasionally, but now it seems addicted to them.
On the same day, China launched long-range drills around Japan’s and South Korea’s ADIZ, as Chinese aircraft flew through the Sea of Japan (known as the “East Sea” in South Korea) and the West Pacific. These Chinese activities threaten the national defense of Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and create regional tension. Surely that makes China a troublemaker? Surely it changes the cross-strait “status quo”?
By sneakily reclaiming land and building military facilities on reefs in the South China Sea, Beijing is testing the limits of US tolerance. The challenge has proven successful, as Washington failed to understand the need to deal with the problem immediately.
China’s appetite has grown after this success. The US does not understand that if you give China an inch, it will take a mile.
Washington does not know what to do with Beijing, but it continues to unilaterally block Taipei from taking a single step toward changing the cross-strait “status quo.” Is the US telling Taiwan to sit quietly and wait for its own death?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor from the National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS