Who would we prefer to win the US presidential election? If it seems presumptuous on our part to state a preference, let us point out that Taiwan has owed its security, and as a result its economic miracle and resultant prosperity, to a US military shield put in place five decades ago by President Harry Truman. The maintenance of that shield is Taiwan's most vital strategic interest. And yet the robust US response to China's "missile diplomacy" in 1996 has not proved reassuring.
The problem is that whereas China's missile intimidation was a foolish piece of military adventurism, it was an extraordinarily fruitful piece of diplomacy. Having nearly wrecked its relationship with the US, something on which its economy was and is utterly dependent, nevertheless it was the US which was forced to pay a price for putting relations back on track -- which means having the right to sign agreements with China that Beijing has no intention of keeping. This was achieved in the form of Bill Clinton giving voice to the "three no's" on his visit to China in 1998, which shifted the US position from passively tolerating to supporting China's claim to Taiwan.
Any American might ask, of course, why defending Taiwan is in their national interest. Surely a better relationship with a nuclear-armed China has to take priority. A question to which Taiwanese have few answers except the obvious one of pointing out that after decades of exhortation they have evolved into exactly the kind of healthy democracy that the US wants to spread around the world, and it would do that project little good to make the kind of society that Taiwan has become expendable to appease the despots in Beijing. Appeasement doesn't work.
Which of the two US candidates is more likely to remember this when China gets rough? Frankly, we can't tell. Al Gore has all the dubious baggage of association with the Clinton regime and its toadying to China -- all the more ironic since cuddling up to the butchers in Beijing was a useful weapon in Governor Clinton's arsenal against George W. Bush's father back in 1992. But then that father's influence over George W. is likely to make itself felt, especially in foreign policy, something that hardly bodes well for Taiwan either.
Both candidates were reported in Taiwan media yesterday as giving their support to the "one China" doctrine. Gore has said that he would make sure Taiwan had the means to defend itself and would take any threat to Taiwan as a serious threat to the region. Bush has said that the US would not help Taiwan in any conflict if it was provoked by Taiwan, but in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, would not stand idly by if China were to start a war with Taiwan.
Taken at face value, Gore seems to be the better bet if he keeps his promise about weapons. After all, getting the US to stop supplying Taiwan with arms is the primary goal of China's current Taiwan policy. And Bush's remarks about conflict "provoked by Taiwan" are chilling, seeming, as they do, to preclude any further manifestation by Taiwan of its independent sovereignty.
Either candidate, should he become president, has, however, more to think about than policy toward Taiwan, which means day-to-day the topic will fall into the hands of that permanent foreign policy establishment that rotates between the think tanks, academia and government service and which has, for so long, spoken with a resolutely pro-China pro-appeasement, anti-Taiwan, anti-democratic stance. This of course means a kind of malign neglect of Taiwan until the next crisis. And then, who will come down harder? Who knows? And God willing, let us hope we do not have to find out.
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
RSS