Council of Foreign Relations president Richard Haass recently published an article entitled The Looming Taiwan Crisis. It is surprisingly unbalanced in analyzing the cause of the crisis he fears.
The article begins by describing the three US-China communiques which “downgrade[d] ties with Taiwan and maintain[ed] only unofficial relations with the island.”
It then refers to the Taiwan Relations Act, in which the US stated that it would “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means of grave concern to the United States” and laid out the approach Washington would follow to prevent that scenario.
Haass describes it as follows:
“The law stated that the US would support Taiwan’s self defense and maintain the capacity to come to Taiwan’s aid. Left vague, however, was whether it actually would. Taiwan could not assume that it would; the mainland [China] could not assume that it would not. Such ambiguity was meant to dissuade either side from unilateral acts that could trigger a crisis.”
Haass judged the communiques and TRA together as “a winning formula” for all three parties, but then expressed concern with its longevity, saying: “The question is whether time is running out.”
What is the source of the problem in Haass’ view? Reflecting the established mindset of the foreign policy establishment, he says it is Taiwan.
“For many years, US policymakers worried that Taiwan would upset the apple cart: not content with the mere trappings of independence, it would opt for the real thing — an unacceptable outcome for the mainland,” he wrote.
The article makes no mention of the myriad efforts Beijing has made over the years under the TRA to change the “status quo” by constricting Taiwan’s de facto independence and the international respect it has earned for its “economic success and ... thriving democracy.”
No mention of China bribing small, poor countries to abandon their diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
No mention of Beijing’s frequent economic pressures to bring Taiwan under its control; no mention of the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait crisis, when China fired missiles toward Taiwan.
No mention of China’s relentless diplomatic constraints on Taiwan’s ability to participate freely in international organizations, such as the WHO, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Olympics, thereby hurting not only Taiwanese, but depriving the world of the contributions Taiwan’s highly talented society could provide.
No mention of the absurdly childish punishments imposed on countries to eradicate Taiwan’s name and separate existence from maps, travel destinations, even commercial articles of clothing; no mention of Beijing’s Orwellian campaign to make Taiwan, a model peaceful, democratic, and law-abiding country, into an international pariah to be shunned and further isolated — this from the world’s greatest violator of international norms in every area of human endeavor.
No mention of China’s 2005 Anti-Secession Law, which proclaims its right to use force to seize control of Taiwan not only if it declares its independence as the author fears, but also if it takes too long to accept the rule of the Chinese Communist Party — in other words, continuation of the “status quo” itself is “an unacceptable outcome for the mainland.”
No mention of China’s repeated military exercises around Taiwan or its repeated warnings that, in Haass’ words, “time is running out.”
Instead of recognizing Beijing’s decades-long campaign of hostility and pressure against Taiwan, the tone of the article is that Taiwan is the troublemaker and the cause of cross-strait tensions. It is only late in the article that the author acknowledges that China might have some partial responsibility, but only as a very recent development and only on a par with America as a disruptor of the “status quo.”
As he puts it: “Now, however, stability is also being jeopardized by both China and the US.”
By virtue of his position as head of the council, Haass epitomizes the foreign policy establishment’s perspective on Taiwan as a bit of a nuisance and an impediment to beneficial Western relations with China. While paying respect to Taiwan as a vibrant democracy, that mindset also is predisposed to urge Taipei to somehow come to terms with Beijing, even thought that would inevitably end with the extinguishment of Taiwan’s democratic system.
At some point, foreign policy leaders will have to grasp that the circle cannot be squared. Taiwan, having discarded its old anti-Communist dictatorship, will not accept a Communist dictatorship. China says it cannot tolerate even a de facto independent Taiwan, especially a democratic entity that shows Chinese what is possible under a normal government.
The only thing that will prevent the “looming crisis” Haass foresees is an explicit, public declaration by the US that it will defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. War with America is the one alternative that Beijing would find even more unpalatable than leaving Taiwan peacefully democratic and independent. Washington should ensure that China understands its choices and the expert community should help explain it to Chinese leaders.
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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry