According to US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen, although everybody uses the name Taiwan, if the Democratic Progressive Party were to use the name in an official political or legal framework such as a referendum, it would constitute changing the name of the country.
The US is of the opinion that this would be an intentional step toward changing the "status quo." And that is why Christensen says that he sees no room for compromise between the US and Taiwan on a UN referendum.
Christensen recently talked about the US' bottom line. He said the US was strongly opposed to any referendum, as its "potential downsides ... for Taiwan and US interests are potentially large," and "the benefits for Taiwan's international status are non-existent."
He talked about the harm a UN referendum might do Taiwan. This could be seen as implying that provoking China might have serious consequences for Taiwan. If Taiwan was considered to have provoked China by means of a referendum, the US may feel its promise to intervene in the event of an attack from China as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) would be invalidated.
Christensen thinks the proposed referendum would not help Taiwan apply for UN membership, but would limit the nation's international space. It would not win Taiwan any sympathy internationally; on the contrary, it could contribute to Beijing's power to limit Taiwan's international space and cause countries sympathetic to Taiwan to distance themselves from it. There was a warning in his speech that showed between the lines.
But why would a referendum on UN membership hurt the interests of the US and Taiwan, and force the US to strongly oppose it? The first reason is, as Christensen said in his speech, that the US' Taiwan Strait policy from 1979 has been beneficial to both Americans and Taiwanese.
"[A]s a friend of Taiwan, as an indispensable supporter of its democracy and freedoms, the United States ranks second to none," he said, because this fits with US interests in East Asia. What he didn't say was, if Taiwan provoked China, for example, by holding a referendum on applying for UN membership, this would not be in the US' interest, and so it might make an exception to its policy.
As to the second reason, Christensen said there was "absolutely no foundation to the assertion that the US coordinates its Taiwan policy with Beijing."
China and the US are working together in trying to maintain the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait. Both want to prevent Taiwanese independence and encourage cross-strait talks, but that is not the same as the US coordinating its Taiwan policy with China. However, it cannot be denied that China influences Taiwan through the US, and Beijing is putting increasing pressure on Washington.
The underlying meaning in Christensen's words is that if Taiwan continues to push for holding the referendum, this would harm US interests, and the possibility of the US and China coordinating their Taiwan policy cannot be ruled out.
Christensen says "if the referendum goes forward unchanged, we anticipate that Taiwan's perceptive, intelligent citizens will see through the rhetoric and make a sound judgment that the referendum does not serve their interests because it will be fundamentally harmful to Taiwan's external relations."
In a situation when diplomacy doesn't cut it, a direct appeal to the Taiwanese public, although it can't stop a referendum, could dampen enthusiasm for it, diminish its legitimacy and cause it to fail.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS