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.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS