On Nov. 11, 2001, China officially signed an agreement to join the WTO and promised to open trade in sectors such as agriculture, automobiles, finance and medical services. The US gave the Chinese market a six-year protection period, and then gradually permitted exports to China, while the US market was open to China immediately.
Year after year, China enjoys preferential treatment from countries with “most-favored nation” status. China has earned a huge trade surplus from the US, which — after the connivance of the administrations of former US presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — has risen to US$419.1 billion in the past year.
The US-China trade spat seems to be a simple tariff dispute, but involves the rise and fall of overall international economic and trade strength, and the redefined Asian-Pacific social order after World War II.
After earning a pocket, China tried to change the regional social order. Beijing throws out the slogan: “One Belt, One Road,” leading the international community one by one toward communist socialism led by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The San Francisco System has been severely eroded.
The Japan Institute for International Affairs held a symposium at Stanford University on May 10, which discussed “Comparing ‘the Versailles-Washington System’ and ‘San Francisco System’: Lessons from the Rise and Fall of International Orders in East Asia; “Japanese, US and Chinese Interests and Security”; and “Alternative Future East Asia Systems.”
The main theme was the two systems dominated by the US — the Versailles-Washington System after World War I, and the San Francisco System after World War II — to examine “the past, present and future international order in East Asia.”
On the same day, a number of participating academics unanimously expressed sympathy for Taiwan over the suppression and bullying it is suffering. They were very worried and anxious about the nation’s future.
Of course, the San Francisco System has an inseparable relationship with Taiwan’s legal international status. Taiwan was originally a territory under military occupation, which was left unresolved after World War II. Now, it has become a continuation of the civil war between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party.
This is unacceptable.
Fortunately, the US-Japan Security Treaty includes Taiwan in Japan’s defense. The US passed the Taiwan Travel Act and the Taiwan Assurance Act. These are US laws, the source of which is of course the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
In 2005, China wishfully wanted to formulate an anti-secession law, but there was no legal basis for it.
The most severe challenge facing Taiwan at this moment is the identity Taiwanese uphold. Is the nation an inseparable part of China? Does it belong to the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China (ROC), or is it the ROC?
Are Taiwan and China defined as a cross-strait family, sweethearts or cops and robbers, or should the so-called “1992 consensus,” “one country, two systems” or “pro-China, love Taiwan” be used to describe the relationship?
Or should Taiwanese say that Taiwan is Taiwan, China is Taiwan’s neighbor, let us be good neighbors to each other, while being pro-US, friendly toward China and loving Taiwan?
Measuring the current situation is still dangerous. Although the San Francisco System is at risk of being challenged by the Chinese communist system, as long as Taiwanese have confidence and choose the universal values of democracy and freedom, they will one day, with dignity, participate in international community and be a loyal member of the global family.
Taiwanese must insist on abiding by democracy, hold on to the San Francisco System and boldly say no to communist centralization.
John Hsieh is the founder of the Asian-American Federation of California for Asian Festival and the Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce of the San Francisco Bay Area. He lives in Hayward, California.
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
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing