In December 2003, US President George W. Bush publicly scorned President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at a press conference by saying that "comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."
Since then, the US has used every occasion to shovel into the brains of many voters in Taiwan the idea that there is a "status quo" which needs to be maintained at all cost. But the truth of the matter is, in life, there is no such thing as a status quo.
It was with some amusement and also amazement that I watched Stephen Young lecturing during his press conference on the "change" that is supposed to be coming in 2008 (thus making this fall the critical time at which to pass the arms budget).
But if we are to hold on to the alleged status quo, isn't "change" itself a contradiction of this concept?
In recent years, the US has been saying to Taiwanese voters not to fight nor irritate China. But now, it seems that Young is telling us to do the exact opposite and fight our neighbor.
I hope US policymakers will soon realize how inconsistent and misleading their messages from the past few years have been to the Taiwanese voters.
The US should also bear in mind that Taiwanese voters are just like everybody else the world over, in that they are not good at reading the minds of rhetorically sophisticated foreign politicians. The message, therefore, has to be clear and easy for them to understand.
I also hope that Young will work to repair the damage that former AIT director Douglas Paal has made to the Taiwan-US lines of communication. There is certainly a huge disconnect between the US and Taiwanese voters, whose votes made the pan-blue camp the controlling majority in the nation's politics.
The biggest mistake the US has made is to look at Taiwan as an afterthought to its dealings with China, resulting in Washington never making a clear effort to elaborate a Taiwan policy. How can one expect success in any matter without putting in real efforts?
What the US needs is a consistent and user-friendly Taiwan policy.
Sing Young
Taoyuan City
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS