For quite some time, Taiwan and the US have not seen eye to eye over the proposed referendum on Taiwan's application for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." The US has blamed Taiwan for being aggressive and not giving due consideration to the US' needs in the Iraq war and the war on terror. Taiwan, on the other hand, complains that it is precisely the US' preoccupation with those two wars that has caused it to neglect the survival crisis facing Taiwan. Trust between the two parties is at a low, and the US feels Taiwan's president has violated his "four noes" promise, while Taiwan feels the US keeps changing its expectations.
Some commentators feel the current problems in this relationship are the result of differing views of the "status quo." That, however, has always been the case, so the problem isn't that there is a difference in the way the two sides interpret the "status quo," but rather how they respond to and deal with the differences between their interpretations. Can the US and Taiwan communicate or will the situation deteriorate and lead to a crisis.
A review of the developments in relations between the US and Japan and the US and South Korea holds many lessons. When the Cold War ended and the US-Japanese alliance lost its main enemy, the Soviet Union, mutual trust between the two was at a low because of economic competition. However, the two countries did not let factors such as the views or actions of a single leader obscure their view of the larger context.
They instead resolved their problems by recognizing the structural changes in the situation. This approach led to a redefinition of the US-Japanese alliance in 1996. The alliance and its role in the post-Cold War era were redefined, thus laying a foundation for its rapid future development.
When the US and South Korea, also alliance partners, were faced with similar problems, the main focus was placed on individual leaders and there was not enough structural analysis of the situation. The US felt that President Roh Moo-hyun's government was anti-US while the South Koreans felt that President George W. Bush's administration was dangerous because of its neoconservatism.
As a result, the North Korean nuclear issue has developed into a strategic division between the US and South Korea. This has complicated negotiations with North Korea.
People analyzing the state of US-Taiwan relations are liable to misjudge the situation.
The pan-blue camp, pro-China media and some allegedly pan-green commentators believe that President Chen Shui-bian (
The implication is that a change in leadership will smooth out the wrinkles in our relationship with the US, and we have even seen the presidential candidates jump on the bandwagon by promising their visions for Taiwan would differ from Chen's leadership style.
Instead, let's look at recent history. If we analyze Taiwan-US relations since Taiwan's democratization, we see that the US has toward the end of each four-year presidential term in Taiwan, accused the incumbent of being a troublemaker.
This was true of former Chinese Nationalist Party president Lee Teng-hui (
This is also why it is more fruitful to try to understand the structural changes in the relationship between the US, China and Taiwan on the one hand and the situation in the Asia-Pacific region on the other than it is to discuss Chen's personal contributions to or influence on the US-Taiwan relationship.
Taiwan has developed into a democratic state and a major world economy, China is rapidly becoming a great power although the US is still the lone superpower, but occupied with its "war on terrorism." The relationship between these three states has changed dramatically since the Cold War, meaning that Taiwan-US relations as we once knew them are unable to deal with the complex and transformed situation.
We must understand this to understand why Chen and former senior US officials Michael Green and Randy Schriver all responded to the disagreement over the UN referendum proposal by suggesting a review of the structure of the existing relationship between Taiwan and the US and recommended that talks between Taiwan and the US occur at a higher level.
Lai I-chung is head of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of International Affairs.
Translated by Perry Svensson
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS