Brookings Institution senior fellow Richard Bush has said that US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi “should reject” a call by several US senators that she should invite President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to address a joint meeting of the US Congress.
He offered three objections to the “flawed proposal” to honor “the elected leader of one of America’s best friends in the world.”
First, he said: “It is contrary to a fundamental principle of US relations with China … that we would carry out substantive relations with Taiwan and its government on an unofficial basis … China would interpret the move as Washington’s reneging.”
That would be the Shanghai Communique — the original sin of US-China-Taiwan relations — which I and others have long contended is the most flawed diplomatic document ever signed by a US president.
However, even taken on its own terms, China has from the outset violated the US’ stated “fundamental principle” — that the Taiwan issue be resolved peacefully. Mao Zedong (毛澤東) instead insisted on the “right” to use force. Yet the parties moved ahead without having established a meeting of the minds on that ultimate underlying issue — thereby ignoring the sine qua non for a binding agreement in every legal system in the world.
In the almost five decades since, Beijing has accrued the enormous benefits of the US’ engagement policy. Yet it has continued to use force, the threat of force, economic coercion, subversion, sharp power, psychological warfare and diplomatic isolation in its relentless quest to bring Taiwan’s emerging, and now fully-fledged, democracy under China’s communist dictatorship.
These ongoing hostile actions, which defy Washington’s condition of a peaceful outcome, have long freed the US, morally and legally, to treat Taiwan and its leaders as the model global citizen it is, up to and including formal diplomatic recognition. An address by Tsai to Congress falls well within the range of permissible US options.
Which brings us to the second perceived “flaw” in the senators’ proposal — its disregard of China’s predictable unhappiness.
“[A] radical downgrading of the relationship would be likely… Any hope … of cutting a trade deal … would vanish,” Bush said.
That assumes — as US policymakers and the expert community have done all along — that good economic and political relations are more important to Washington than to Beijing.
With that mindset, the West has continued its generous engagement policies that helped build China into an economic and military powerhouse, while ignoring its constant flouting of international norms in trade, human rights, proliferation, territorial claims and support for other criminal regimes.
In all those areas, Beijing never frets about how its actions might offend Washington or other capitals — it just does what furthers its ambitions and what it thinks it can get away with, which, during the engagement era, has been a lot.
The administration of US President Donald Trump is finally breaking the mold, imposing tariffs for unfair trade practices, prosecuting fraud and theft of intellectual property, conducting freedom of navigation operations against illegal maritime claims, and checking Beijing’s military and diplomatic pressures against Taiwan.
A Taiwanese presidential visit to Washington would partially correct a historic injustice against Taiwan, and make clear to China that its exploitative and aggressive approach to the West is no longer acceptable.
However, Bush said: “Beijing would take the opportunity to pressure and squeeze Taiwan even more than it is already doing … get the small number of countries that still maintain diplomatic relations with Taipei to switch to the PRC [People’s Republic of China] … intensify Taiwan-directed [military] exercises … increase efforts to interfere in Taiwan’s domestic politics.”
Applying that standard, China could — and does — escalate its bad behavior any time it chooses, over any contentious issue and without any pretext at all. That is the modus operandi of a tyrannical regime and history demonstrates that the governments of the Free World simply cannot afford to yield to its intimidation.
In any event, the US’ National Defense Strategy, promulgated by the US Department of Defense last month, dispels any illusions that, left unchecked, China’s aggressive actions increasingly threaten regional and US security. Asymmetrical, non-kinetic actions like strengthening government-to-government relations with democratic and geostrategically well-situated Taiwan are both moral and prudent.
The “third flaw” is simply a recasting of the second: a presumption that, for fear of China’s reaction, Taipei would not welcome such an invitation. The best way to address this “disregard for Taiwan’s view” is to extend the invitation privately and let the Taiwanese government decide whether to accept it.
By itself, a congressional resolution recommending the invitation, even if not accepted, would emphasize to both Taiwan and China how highly the US prizes its friendship and strategic partnership with Taiwan, and how seriously it would treat any further Chinese attempts to pressure or intimidate it. For that reason alone, it is well worth doing.
Joseph Bosco served as China country director in the office of the US secretary of defense. He is a fellow at the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies and a member of the advisory committee of the Global Taiwan Institute.
Late last month, Beijing introduced changes to school curricula in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requiring certain subjects to be taught in Mandarin rather than Mongolian. What is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) seeking to gain from sending this message of pernicious intent? It is possible that he is attempting cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia, but does Xi also have the same plan for the democratic, independent nation of Mongolia? The controversy emerged with the announcement by the Inner Mongolia Education Bureau on Aug. 26 that first-grade elementary-school and junior-high students would in certain subjects start learning with Chinese-language textbooks, as
There are worrying signs that China is on the brink of a major food shortage, which might trigger a strategic contest over food security and push Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), already under intense pressure, toward drastic measures, potentially spelling trouble for Taiwan and the rest of the world. China has encountered a perfect storm of disasters this year. On top of disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, torrential rains have caused catastrophic flooding in the Yangtze River basin, China’s largest agricultural region. Floodwaters are estimated to have already destroyed the crops on 6 million hectares of farmland. The situation has been
In 1955, US general Benjamin Davis Jr, then-commander of the US’ 13th Air Force, drew a maritime demarcation line in the middle of the Taiwan Strait, known as the median line. Under pressure from the US, Taiwan and China entered into a tacit agreement not to cross the line. On July 9, 1999, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) described cross-strait relations as a “special state-to-state” relationship. In response, Beijing dispatched People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft into the Taiwan Strait, crossing the median line for the first time since 1955. The PLA has begun to regularly traverse the line. On Sept. 18 and 19, it
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if