It remains to be seen whether the advertisement placed by the US State Department in the classifieds section of this newspaper over the weekend will prompt a reaction from Beijing, but some academics in Taiwan have already interpreted it as a presage of a shift in diplomatic relations between Taiwan and the US.
The ad requested solicitations for contractors to build, among other things, a Marine Security Guard Quarters (MSGQ) at the future American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) building.
Let’s for the moment put aside the fact that US foreign policy has become so militarized that “better” diplomatic relations is now being equated with the presence of armed US Marines on foreign ground, or the surreal prospect of having Marines posted to a relatively safe city like Taipei at a time when the US military, with its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and commitments elsewhere, is already stretched to the limit.
What matters here is the symbolism of an MSGQ as well as the conspicuous timing of the request for a proposal.
Whether the presence of US Marines at a diplomatic compound is a sign of more official relations is debatable. But given the sensitive situation in the Taiwan Strait, it wouldn’t be surprising if in the coming weeks Washington played down the significance of the change, as it will not have gone unnoticed by a Beijing that is hypersensitive when it comes to Taipei’s foreign relations. Surely the State Department knew this, just as it knew that the ad would end up, one way or another, in the hands of officials in China.
So why now, following the election of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), when relations between Taipei and Beijing show a chance of improving? Why not last year, when polls showed “anti-US” sentiment in Taiwan at an historic high following Washington’s humiliation of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and, by extension Taiwanese, as the nation sought to gain membership in the UN and the WHO? Or at times, such as in 1996, when tensions were high enough that a clash in the Taiwan Strait could have put the security of US diplomats in Taiwan at risk?
Surely, security concerns stoked by local animosity toward US officials and the symbol of their presence in the country would be the main reason behind the need to post Marines.
The answer, perhaps, lies in the very chance of a rapprochement between Taipei and Beijing, an outcome that some in Washington now fear could sideline the US and undermine its strategic presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Could it be, then, that the simple placing of an ad that suggests (at least from Beijing’s perspective) the normalization of diplomatic relations with Taipei serves a purpose that is far beyond soliciting contractors? Could it be that it is a means to maintain tensions in the Taiwan Strait at a level that the US has grown accustomed to and one that justifies its presence in the region?
Let’s give Washington the benefit of the doubt; maybe it’s just bad timing. But hidden motives or not, whatever happens next is contingent on how Beijing interprets and reacts to the news.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS