In an online interview titled “The Coming US-China Clash Over Taiwan” posted on YouTube, US economist Jeffrey Sachs called for peace.
“We need above all peace and prudence here, because if it were not for the US meddling, I’m quite sure that across the [Taiwan] Strait there would be a solution to these issues that is peaceful, sensible and especially pragmatic, and if ... politicians in the US are pragmatic and prudent, that peace will prevail,” Sachs said.
His summary of the historical situation between Taiwan and China, and the US’ involvement, was largely accurate, and he was certainly less overtly proximate to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) version of events than he has been before.
However, he did repeat the CCP’s mischaracterization of World War II-era agreements as “proving” that Taiwan was ceded to China.
Sach’s preoccupation has long been with what he considers the folly and arrogance of US foreign policy, and with China. There is no reason to doubt his commitment to peace, but there was something he left out in his summary: recognition of the agency of Taiwanese to decide their own future.
It is one thing to not want Taiwan to be a pawn in US-China regional hegemonic politics, but the problem is his tacit agreement to allow Taiwan’s future to be decided by one great power while the other stays on the sidelines. Where is the self-determination for Taiwanese?
Sachs does not want war. Contrary to his suspicions about the prudence of US officials, Washington does not want war, either. Taiwanese certainly do not want war, with the majority in favor of the cross-strait “status quo.”
Moreover, despite saber-rattling by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Taiwan Strait, neither Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) nor the CCP want war. Initiation of a conflict that would be difficult to contain would be far from prudent. The PLA will continue its pressure to prevent erosion of the CPP’s advantages, but resolution according to international law is Beijing’s most pragmatic option.
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) in an article in the Taipei Times (“Why talk about peace now?” Sept. 18, page 8) urged Taiwan to leverage its agency to push more firmly for peace.
John Cheng, a retired Hong Kong businessman who lives in Taiwan, wrote that there were limits to Lung’s argument (“Let’s talk about peace plainly,” Sept. 19, page 8). In Hong Kong, Cheng saw first-hand the “peaceful, sensible and especially pragmatic” solutions that the CCP might offer Taiwan.
Monique Chu (朱明琴), a lecturer at the University of Southampton, wrote in an online article published on Thursday last week titled “The Use of Force Against Taiwan as a Contested State: An Analysis of Legality and Great-Power Politics,” that Taiwan’s status as a “contested state” could affect the legality of use of force by the CCP to annex it.
Chu detailed the distinction between de jure recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign nation — which Taiwan has been unsuccessful with — and de facto recognition through unofficial channels.
However, while the CCP would frame an invasion as a “domestic action” beyond the scope of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter — which prohibits member states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state — Chu argues that an alternative reading of international law regards “contested” de facto states like Taiwan as also being protected entities, with use of force contravening its rights and security.
If the CCP were to take the prudent, sensible and pragmatic approach that Sachs hopes for, it would offer a real chance of meaningful dialogue with Taiwan’s elected government.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS