Washington clarified that the status of Taiwan is undecided and thereby implied that Taiwan is not part of any nation -- including China. This pronouncement unleashed, under the glare of the global media, a tidal wave of Taiwanese soul searching.
Naysaying from foreign governments and political pundits with their disparate yet self-serving motives aside, the single factor Taiwanese should take to heart is how future generations of Taiwanese will judge the conduct of those from this generation.
Should Taiwan's wishy-washy approach persist to eventually land Taiwan in China's hands, Taiwanese 60 years down the road would certainly curse their grandparents for their pusillanimity. They wouldn't cut the current generation any slack on account of the unremitting threat from Beijing, because they themselves would be experiencing the misery stemming from Beijing's promise to mete out punishment on the current generation of Taiwanese who stood in defiance to it.
The oft-repeated caution that the survival of Taiwan's sovereignty depends on blessing from Beijing is a defeatist mindset at work.
Rather, Taiwanese should rest the nation's sovereignty on self-confidence and steel themselves to prosper without a friendly hand from Beijing for an indefinite period of time. Only by maintaining this kind of attitude would there be any chance that Beijing might turn around at some point. Besides, after surviving the last 60 years under the constant cloud of a hostile China, Taiwan isn't entirely uninitiated in handling such a situation.
Another myth countering Taiwan's formal sovereignty is Washington's attitude. The argument has been that Taiwan's survival depends on US military protection and that therefore Taiwan should heed Washington's objections. That actually amounts to no more than a lame excuse.
Should the US military protection of Taiwan be contingent on the strategic value of Taiwan, the basis would hardly change when Taiwan declares formal sovereignty. The belief that a likelier military conflict stemming from Taiwan's declaration of independence would make the US shy away from protecting Taiwan is tantamount to pronouncing that the value of the US aegis should be discounted.
Taiwan's democratization might complicate Washington's dealings with Beijing, but it couldn't possibly have a negative impact on fundamental Taiwan-US relations, which are grounded on the notion of democracy.
That might explain why, reacting to President Chen Shui-bian's (
In contrast to the latter's long-lasting nature, the former is transitory and pertinent mostly to Chen's ongoing squabbles with the Bush administration.
The fact remains that Taiwan's wading through Beijing-instigated international obstacles to continue democratizing could only deepen that enduring trust, one that is rooted in shared values. No wonder empathy over Taiwan's cause among parliamentary members in the EU, the US and Japan is showing signs of mushrooming and could reach a crescendo should the UN plebiscite succeed.
This leaves intact the belief that, regarding Taiwan's using democratization as the sole path to consolidate its sovereignty, Western governments would effect an about-face long before Beijing.
That possibility alone would justify why, in the uphill struggle to answer the call of Taiwan's future, Taiwanese shouldn't wait for a written invitation.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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