US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified.
That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in Taiwan would still serve as useful context.
Whiton says he is a friend of Taiwan, and the harsh criticisms in the original article were to be taken as hard truths offered in this light. It is true, Whiton has spoken much about the challenges the US faces from the Chinese Communist Party and of the importance of deterring an invasion of Taiwan. These concerns are behind his frustration with the perceived inaction in Taiwan to face up to reality.
He starts with national defense, writing that Taiwan should “establish a clear concept of Taiwanese independent self-defense.” Absolutely it should. It is a point of intense frustration in Taiwan that there should be any doubt about this point. It was one of the causes for the rise of the mass recall movement. Huge swathes of civil society are with Whiton on this one, as is the government. The opposition, not so much.
He goes on to recommend that Taiwan develop an independent satellite network, and that it is right not to trust SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, asking: “Who would trust a man with a car factory in China?”
No, Taiwan should not trust Musk, and nothing Musk has said about Taiwan in the past would recommend that it should.
Whiton also writes that the government should allow for a militia and defense-in-depth, and “prepare and publicly debate plans to fight throughout the island.” These are things already being explored in Taiwan and which should be encouraged.
He then moves on to the question of support for Taiwan in Washington, which is absolutely his beat, and it would be foolish not to listen.
However, we can reserve most attention for the section that begins with the imperative “Redefine Taiwan as Taiwan.” Yes, Taiwan needs to do this. It is a constant bugbear within the country, and one that strikes to the heart of the historical, political and ideological dichotomy between the Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and between the pro-localization and pro-China sides of the debate.
Whiton mentions removing the portrait of Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) from the Legislative Yuan and the currency, repurposing the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as a museum of democracy and getting China Airlines and China Steel Corp to change their names to something less misleading.
We could also add the renaming of street names such as Jhongjheng Road (中正路) — referring to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) — and of doing away with the absurd name “Chinese Taipei” for the Taiwanese team in international sports events. Whiton summarizes this idea as “Taiwan should intellectually sever itself from the Republic of China [ROC] concept.”
He knows what the KMT is. He knows it is the second-largest political party in Taiwan. He presumably also knows that the existence of the ROC runs to the ideological core of what the KMT is. This is no solution, it is an aspiration.
His conclusion is that Taiwan should “embrace reality even when painful, and to get on with life,” and that “Taiwan’s future would not be decided in Washington or Beijing. It would be decided in Taiwan.”
Spoken like a true friend.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS