On Thursday last week, the International Crisis Group (ICG) issued a well-researched report titled “The Widening Schism across the Taiwan Strait,” which focused on rising tensions between Taiwan and China, making a number of recommendations on how to avoid conflict.
While it is of course laudable that a respected international organization such as the ICG is willing to think through possible avenues toward a peaceful resolution, the report contains a couple of fundamental flaws in the way it approaches the issue.
First, it attempts to present a “balanced approach” by pushing back equally against Taiwan’s perceived transgressions as against Beijing’s military threats and intimidation, as well as political and economic pressure. In a sense, this perpetuates the old “dual deterrence” line from the 1950s and 1960s when the US had to prevent an invasion of Taiwan by Mao Zedong (毛澤東) as well as an attack on China by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
This “balanced approach” does not do justice to the fact that Taiwan is now a vibrant democracy, where President William Lai (賴清德) must represent the views of Taiwanese, while China remains an authoritarian regime that uses its increasing political, economic and military might to push Taiwan into a corner. There is simply no moral equivalence there.
The ICG report should have come down much harder on the rather blatant and aggressive Chinese moves against Taiwan.
Instead it meekly states that “Beijing should reduce its military harassment of Taiwan” and seems to accept that “a heightened Chinese military presence around Taiwan will remain the norm.”
The other fundamental flaw is the report’s overemphasis of rather minute differences between the pronouncements of Lai and his predecessor, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). This is not helpful as it gives Beijing more ammunition to hit Lai over the head.
As an example, the report states that Tsai was more “selective” in her statement that “the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other,” implying that the two sides are separate political entities. That statement is a fundamental part of the policies of the Democratic Progressive Party, so the precise number of times Tsai or Lai might have mentioned it should be of no consequence.
The other “proof” given by the report of Lai’s “assertiveness” was that he referred to the other side of the Strait as “China” rather than “the mainland” or “Beijing authorities.” Well, come on now: Everyone refers to China as “China” — as we should. The latter two terms are outdated holdovers from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, and should have been ditched long ago.
Finally, it is problematic that in its flow of arguments, the ICG report seems to imply that Lai’s “increased assertiveness” was the cause of Beijing’s military exercises in May. The report even proffers the rather naive notion that Beijing did not engage in major military exercises right after the January elections, which “arguably communicated a desire to lower the temperature over Taiwan.”
The report also implies that China signaled “patience” and offered a new formulation based on the concept that “both sides of the Strait belong to a Chinese nation,” chiding Lai for not picking up on this.
As the report itself states: Whatever Lai would have said in his inauguration speech, Beijing would have come down hard on him. Beijing’s escalating pressures have deepened the conviction in Taipei that more tact will not produce moderation on China’s part. It is essential for the international community, and for organizations such as the ICG, to understand this reality.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat who teaches Taiwan history and US relations with East Asia at George Mason University and previously taught at the George Washington University Elliott School for International Affairs in Washington.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
RSS