The leaders of the US and Taiwan appear to be caught in a negative spiral at which Beijing can only smile.
Recent blunt exchanges aimed at defending or opposing referendums advocating that Taiwan seek membership in the UN under the name "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" are the latest manifestation of a troubling long-term trend. Notions of sovereignty, independence, leadership and respect fill the airwaves. The Taiwanese people and their leaders face myriad pressures from China -- economic, military, diplomatic and even in their domestic politics.
On top of that is pressure from Washington, which is urging patience -- and in many cases -- inaction, as a sizable segment of Taiwan's population demands that its elected leaders push back against the tide.
In Washington there is a widespread sense of annoyance with Taiwan, which is perceived to be pushing issues known to create tension with Beijing at a time when the US is preoccupied elsewhere and working with Beijing to manage denuclearization of North Korea.
In Taiwan there is a sense of abandonment -- that the Bush doctrine does not apply to China and Taiwan, that the US is looking for ways to qualify its commitment to Taiwan's defense and that Washington is colluding with Beijing in ways that hold back the aspirations of the Taiwanese people.
There is also a perception that Washington does not trust the people of Taiwan or respect the democratic processes at work there -- which, like most democracies, at times are noisy and fail to deliver results.
The diagnosis of these problems is not complicated, but a prescription to get out of this negative spiral is quite difficult.
The circumstances that led the Bush administration to adopt what is seen as an increasingly negative approach to Taiwan show no signs of changing for the remainder of US President George W. Bush's term in office.
Similarly, given the widespread support across political parties in Taiwan for a vote expressing strong popular sentiment against international isolation, there is no doubt that plans for a referendum will proceed no matter what Washington says or does.
The seeming lack of creativity and flexibility on both sides to find common ground or alternative approaches is disappointing and has long-term implications.
Taiwan cannot afford to be passive and wait for the US to finish what is often called a "long war" or "generational challenge" against the forces of radicalism in the Muslim world.
China is not being passive as the war on terror is waged and one has to imagine that the imbalance of power in the Taiwan Strait will be overwhelming in less than a generation -- sooner if Taiwan is passive.
The US has not effectively engaged the forces driving decisions in Taiwan's democracy, in part because it does not feel it should have to.
Instead the US has opted to seek commitments from the "leader of Taiwan" that he is to then impose on his electorate by "exercising leadership."
While this is not the impression the US seeks to convey, it is not far from the mark in describing the attitude driving the US' approach. Needless to say, this does not go over well in Taipei, but more importantly it does not produce the result the US says it seeks.
Taiwanese leaders share responsibility for the negative spiral in relations with the US. Chinese Nationlist Party (KMT) leaders polarized Taiwanese politics by rejecting election outcomes, shaking hands with the Chinese Communist Party but not President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and stalling high-profile defense procurements for years.
Democratic Progressive Party leaders polarize international perceptions of Taiwan by articulating initiatives in ways easily construed by opponents as anti-China or motivated only by near-term domestic considerations.
Lost in all of this is an appreciation for a long-term struggle in Taiwan that the US and even China should easily identify with -- undoing the mistakes of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the means he used to impose the will of a minority.
After all, China itself saw his leadership as sufficiently flawed to justify a violent revolution and A new constitution.
The people of Taiwan have taken a different path in their struggle.
The independence movement in Taiwan is difficult to assess because it has many voices and motivations.
What seems to give it broadest support, however, is not anti-China sentiment. It is the deliberate struggle over time to develop democratic institutions that remove the means used by Chiang to dominate the people of Taiwan, and replacing them with means to prevent any person or party (foreign or domestic) from imposing its will on the people without their consent.
Rolling back Chiang's influence is not de-Sinification. It is liberation, just as it was seen in China.
This drive of course is aimed at China, however, as it is the dominant outside force currently seeking to impose its authority over Taiwan. But it is not limited to China. It is aimed at limiting the ability of any future leader of Taiwan to enter agreements that determine Taiwan's future without public consent.
And as the US is finding out, it can be aimed at others (including allies) who seek to impose their interests on the Taiwanese people.
The current tussle over the proposed UN referendum is caught in these deep undercurrents.
Even if the Taiwanese people cannot achieve UN membership through the process, a large segment of the electorate sees it as important for the US and the international community to respect their desire to use a democratic process to assert who speaks for their interests. They want to underscore that they do this themselves -- not Beijing, not the UN, not the UN secretary-general and not even allies.
On top of the sensitivity attached to the use of referendums as a democratic tool to push back against international isolation, the issue of membership in the UN is linked to undoing one of Chiang's strategic blunders.
He insisted on withdrawing from the UN even though not required to do so by Resolution 2758, ironically defying hard work by the US aimed at keeping Taiwan in the UN while ceding the Security Council seat to Beijing.
For those who struggled for decades for basic civil rights and democratic institutions in Taiwan there is profound insult and injury in the current circumstance that few in the international community can appreciate. How can it be that three decades after the death of a dictator that the people of Taiwan are still held down by the choices he made without their consent?
And how can it be that the US government -- which worked against his decision to withdraw -- now appears an ally in the cause to make Chiang's mistake permanent?
Stephen Yates is president of DC Asia Advisory, a Washington-based consulting firm, and is former deputy assistant to US Vice President Dick Cheney for national security affairs.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS