During his recent visit to Taipei, US Congressman Matt Salmon urged President Lee Teng-hui (
Salmon is a man of principle and straightforward. He loves Taiwan and supports Taiwan in resisting China's pressure; he is a friend of Taiwan. Of course, as a US Congressman, he has to keep in mind the interests of the US, and we appreciate that.
However, I have to respectfully disagree with his com-ments, which seem aimed at trying to silence Taiwan on a matter of national survival. As matter of principle, Taiwan should not be silenced. On this issue, Salmon's position does not square with the fundamental values of demo-cracy. It is also unfair to the people of Taiwan.
As Lee and other ROC government officials have repeatedly explained, the Republic of China has been and continues to be a sovereign state. This is a matter of historical and legal fact.
The US government withdrew its diplomatic recognition of the ROC and refuses to consider it a sovereign country in the name of it "one China" policy. But the ROC protested and considers the action of the US as null and void. In a historical and legal sense, the ROC is a democratic sovereign state.
It is up to the US and the international community to decide if they have the courage to ignore PRC's outrageous position and recognize ROC as a sovereign nation. But it is absurd to ask Taiwan to deny itself as a sovereign state.
As a member of the House International Relations Committee, Salmon should know that if Taiwan were silent on the issue of sovereignty, it would be interpreted as acquiescence to being part of PRC in the long run. It may be annoying to some, but it is critical for Taiwan to restate its sovereignty from time to time.
Since Taiwan has consistently affirmed its status as a sovereign state, the relations between ROC and the PRC should be state to state, unless the PRC declines to be considered as a sovereign state. Undoubtedly Beijing doesn't like Taiwan's position. But it is up to them to decide whether to accept Taiwan's position, just as it is up to Taiwan to decide whether to accept the PRC's "one country, two systems" policy
As far as Taiwan is concerned, "one country, two systems" is offensive, provocative and unacceptable. But I have never heard Salmon or any US politician asking Beijing to be cautious and use restraint.
It is beyond logic to consider a statement of fact as provocative and dangerous as threat to use force to resolve differences between two sides. How can one argue that advocating peaceful co-existence and waiting to resolve differences democratically is more provocative than insisting on imposing one's rule by any means, including the use of force?
Taiwan has no reason to provoke China but has every reason to look for peaceful co-existence with Beijing. Taiwan has been restrained and cautious in trying to avoid new tensions with China. But that cannot be done and should not be done at the expense of sovereignty. On the matter of national survival, Taiwan should not be muzzled.
J.C. Sym is a Taiwanese journalist based in the US.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
RSS