Graham Allison, a professor at Harvard University, got it wrong, again. In a Nov. 9 article on WorldPost, a partnership of the Berggruen Institute and the Washington Post, Allison took the commemoration of the end of World War I as an opportunity to elaborate further on his “Thucydides Trap” theory, pitting a rising power — China — against an established power — the US.
In the article, professor Allison described Taiwan as a major flashpoint, because, as he wrote: “For China, Taiwan is a “core interest” — regarded as much a part of China as Alaska is to the United States. Any attempt by Taiwan to become an independent country could easily become a casus belli. In 1996, when the Taiwanese government took initial steps toward independence, China conducted extensive missile tests bracketing the island to coerce it to stop.”
The problem is that professor Allison rather recklessly adopts the Chinese narrative on how it sees Taiwan and fails to present the facts as they are: In its long history, Taiwan was never part of the People’s Republic of China. The main point lost on the leaders in Beijing — and professor Allison — is that during the 1980s and 1990s, Taiwan morphed into a vibrant democracy that wants to live in peace with all its neighbors, including China, and wants to be accepted as an equal member of the international community.
So what narrative should we follow if we want to avoid a major conflict? That is what professor Allison professes to try to achieve with his essay. For one, his essay is titled “The next great war.” If one wants to push for peace, then it might be helpful to start with another title. How about “The next great peace”?
If professor Allison, and others like him who have rather carelessly used the Taiwan case to bolster their “realist” theories, such as George Washington University professor Charles Glaser and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, it would be more constructive to analyze and present ways and scenarios that would lead to the peaceful coexistence of Taiwan and China.
For this to happen, it would be necessary for three parallel processes to take place:
First, the rulers in Beijing must look at Taiwan in a new light. Chinese leaders need to move away from the old animosities, contradictions and perceptions dating from the Chinese Civil War, which ended 69 years ago.
Beijing needs to understand that the perpetuation of the current zero-sum strategy of military, economic and political pressure is not conducive to cross-strait relations, and that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait can only be achieved if China moves toward acceptance of Taiwan as a friendly neighbor.
Second, the international community must reimagine its Taiwan relations. Taking into account that democratic Taiwan is not the same as the repressive Republic of China of 1971. The US and western Europe in particular need to look at Taiwan in its own light and its own right. Taiwan needs to be brought in from the cold of political isolation and relations must be normalized. Under the principle of universality, Taiwan must be supported as a full and equal member in the international family of nations.
Third, in due time and at its own pace, Taiwan needs to reinvent itself. Through a process of democratic reforms, Taiwan needs to adjust the administrative, legislative, judicial and constitutional structure to fit present-day needs and realities.
Instead of the narrative of “Taiwan as a flashpoint,” Allison and others need to focus on these three interrelated processes, which provide a constructive way forward for Taiwan to have a bright future as a free and democratic nation that is accepted as a full and equal member of the international community.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat. From 1980 through 2016 he was editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication chronicling Taiwan’s momentous transition to democracy. He teaches the history of Taiwan at George Mason University in Virginia.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS