Taiwan's model role
The article ("Chen calls on China to restart stalled dialogue," Nov. 11, page 1) could not help make me think that President Chen Shui-bian's (
Your editorial page backed up that assertion saying, "In May, Chen came up with a solution to opening direct links without having direct negotiations between Beijing and Taipei."
But now that China has called Chen's bluff by agreeing in principle to his formula for such relations, he is backpedaling and wrapping himself in the flag -- although it is not clear what flag anymore.
Granted, it is better to backpedal in defense of the country than to maintain a foolish consistency, but now Chen's talk of a desire to normalize relations with the PRC has proven hollow.
From the beginning, in word and deed, Chen has proven that he has no desire to incite a conflict. Taiwan's allies and enemies alike have no reason to doubt his competency.
Insofar as his "middle way" has exhausted its utility, Chen can now take a more aggressive line with China. Aside from China's belligerence toward Taiwanese sovereignty, the biggest issue has arguably been the question of direct links.
There are not many advantages Taiwan has in its confrontation with China. One of the few is the moral highground Taiwan has in the eyes of the world. Taiwan cannot afford to give China more opportunities to appear reasonable and non-ideological.
In being more aggressive with China, Chen does not have to call for referendums or talk about the sovereignty of the ROC (especially since the ROC cannot be said to have any sovereignty, except insofar as it serves as a mechanism through which the people of Taiwan express their sovereign wills).
It only means that he has to be frank and direct. He must be honest with the people of Taiwan and with the rest of the world by stressing at least two facts -- that the question of Taiwan's right to self-determination is not an isolated one, nor is it likely to be resolved quickly or easily and that there can be no free Asia without a free China.
The liberal powers of Asia cannot afford to be passive about China's progress toward pluralist democracy. Nor can they afford to rely almost ex-clusively on US activism to fend off Chinese aggression. Liberal values are only now beginning to bud in Asia. But if they are to survive, they have to guard not only against reactionaries at home, but tyrants abroad, as well.
The people of Taiwan have been thrust into an enormously difficult situation, forced into an undesired confrontation with China, simply be-cause they wish to determine their own destiny. They cannot afford not to talk about the creation of a liberal Asia and, consequently, the eventual liberation of China.
Taiwan's hopes of exercising its right to self-determination cannot be won alone. The support Taiwan now receives from abroad is not in defense of ROC sovereignty; it is in support of Taiwan's emerging democracy and its right to self-determination.
Taiwan must make it clear that the future of Taiwan is the future of Asia. If Taiwan is allowed to fall to the barbarism of the "Great China" ideology, it will be a huge disaster for freedom in Asia.
In short, Taiwan's freedom is bound to the freedom of Asia. Or, rather, Asia's freedom is bound to the freedom of Taiwan.
Taiwan's peculiar situation necessitates that its political leaders actively claim the vanguard of Asian liberalism. It is time for the Taiwanese to forge their own destiny, to make their voices heard in Asia and across the globe.
Nobody else can do it for them.
J. Tavis Overstreet
Chiayi
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS