Critics of Israel often argue that building settlements inside Palestinian territory belies the stated intention to work toward a two-state solution. By creating facts on the ground, critics argue, Israel is making it impossible for Palestinians to create a viable, independent state, thus condemning the two peoples to a shared future of uncertainty.
The problem with facts on the ground is that once they have been created, it is extremely difficult to undo them. When it comes to the Israeli settlements, turning back the clock would mean dismantling housing for more than a quarter of a million Israelis in the West Bank.
Throughout the years, many Israelis — and most Palestinians — have strongly opposed these settlements, but a succession of Israeli governments either did nothing to prevent “natural growth” or adopted policies that encouraged their expansion. As a result, these facts on the ground have made conflict resolution much more difficult.
There is a lesson here that every Taiwanese should keep in mind as the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) create their own facts on the ground in the Taiwan Strait.
Through a series of accords and possibly an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) sometime next year, Taiwan’s fate is becoming dangerously coupled to China’s. Just as in Israel, decisions about a people’s future are being made without the consent of a large swath of the population.
This raises two scenarios.
First, every pact signed with China takes Taiwan closer to what could be called a geopolitical event horizon — the point at which the process of unification is simply a matter of time.
As long as both sides see developments as beneficial, momentum toward Beijing’s desired result will be relatively smooth.
The second arises if, a few years down the road, Taiwan’s leadership elects to change course and avoid this threshold of inevitability. This would likely see the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regaining power in 2012.
But after four years of added facts on the ground in the Taiwan Strait, it is difficult to imagine how a DPP government could turn back the clock — or at least do so without paying very dearly.
For one, China would not give in — just as Israel has refused to bend to international pressure to stop building, let alone entirely dismantle, its settlements in the West Bank.
Furthermore, the DPP government would be hostage, more than ever exposed to Chinese blackmail and threats of retaliation should it seek to weaken the various ties forged by its predecessor. Once again, a DPP government would be seen as a troublemaker, one that risks sparking war in the Taiwan Strait. This is the refrain we are bound to hear in the lead-up to elections in 2012.
The assumption within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP seems to be that cross-strait rapprochement is inevitable.
Perhaps so. But another assumption — a dangerously naive assumption — appears to be that the KMT will never lose its hold on power.
All the facts on the ground that are beginning to appear in the Taiwan Strait have the potential to be seeds of bitter conflict only a few years from now.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty