Sunday, February 24, 2008

Report: US Should Enhance Ties With Taiwan

A new report out from the Taiwan Policy Working Group, a joint project of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Armitage International, argues that the US needs upgrade and expand its ties with Taiwan and stop enabling Beijing's suppression of Taipei. Taiwan News describes:

The report argues that the issue is urgent now that U.S.-Taiwan relations are "dangerously drifting, " with Beijing using diplomatic isolation and the threat of military force to pressure Taiwan into an unfavorable settlement and Taiwan reacting by forcing intractable disputes to the front of the debate.

Describing Taiwan's democracy as a beacon to other societies seeking peaceful political liberalization, the report warns that if Taiwan is coerced by China into a settlement against the wishes of the Taiwanese people, the United States will lose a valuable international partner and suffer a severe blow to its interests and regional position.

In case readers were afflicted with doubt about whether the Bush Administration really does intend to sell Taiwan out to Beijing, the Taiwan News report summarizes:

While admitting that it will be difficult for China to accept a Taiwan with a higher international profile, the report says Washington should nevertheless end Beijing's expectations that it can "deliver" Taiwan.

"Beijing should talk directly to Taipei about its disagreements and not pressure Washington to pressure the Taiwanese government," the report says. "America should make clear to Beijing that it has interests in the continued freedom of the Taiwanese people to decide their own fate and the peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences."

Reuters' Paul Eckert observes in a short article on the issue:

The study said Communist China's growing military power and efforts to isolate Taiwan internationally, combined with efforts by frustrated Taipei leaders to counter this isolation, have created a dangerous cycle.

The United States has responded increasingly by criticizing or pressuring Taiwan at China's behest, but will endanger its interests in Asia if it fails to change course, warned the group

"This dynamic is not sustainable," said the group of analysts and former U.S. government officials, led by Asia security experts Dan Blumenthal of the American Enterprise Institute and Randall Schriver of Armitage International.

"Taiwan will either cave in to pressure in ways that harm long-term U.S. interests or embark on a more dangerous course. Beijing will continue to pressure both Washington and Taipei and miscalculate that the United States has abandoned Taiwan," said the report.

As the Taipei Times describes the report's view, these guys could be writing my blog, calling for greater defense cooperation, more US arms sales, and enhanced ties:

They also call for more US arms sales to Taiwan and greater interoperability between the US and Taiwanese militaries to help combat a Chinese military action against Taiwan.

Citing the US refusal to sell advanced F-16 fighters to Taiwan, the report says: "Washington has thus become culpable in an eroding military balance across the Strait, sacrificing long-term interests to short-term emotion."

Other recommendations include a free trade agreement between the two, more US arms sales to Taiwan focusing on better homeland defense cooperation, anti-submarine warfare, air and missile defense and disaster and humanitarian aid coordination.

The report urges Taiwan to boost defense spending, implement economic reforms including the opening of investment opportunities for Chinese and other foreign firms, promote Taiwanese industries' technological and market advances in international economic relationships, export its democratic model to the rest of the world and use its public health expertise more effectively on the global scene.

Taiwan should also improve the quality of its official congressional relations staff in Washington, in view of ebbing US congressional support for Taiwan in recent years because of changes to new congressional leaders and staffers with "diminished knowledge" about Taiwan and China.

I was just blogging yesterday on the coming disaster that is Bush Administration Taiwan policy + a Ma Ying-jeou victory in the elections, and here AEI makes my exact point. It's not too late for the Bush Administration to back the actual US ally here in the Taiwan elections, and make choices that will result in a stable East Asia whose overall strategic situation favors the US. The entire report is available in English and wisely, in Chinese as well. Good work, guys.

MEDIA NOTE: Reuters' Paul Eckert summarizes in his article on the issue:
The United States switched diplomatic relations to the communist government in China in 1978 after decades of recognizing Taiwan. Taiwan has been ruled separately since the Nationalists fled there after losing a civil war in 1949.

China claims Taiwan as a renegade province that needs to be reunified eventually, by force if necessary. U.S. law requires Washington to provide Taiwan with armaments needed for its defense, but direct official contacts are circumscribed -- often in ways seen by democratic Taiwan as demeaning.
The second paragraph is quite interesting. First, it contains an error: US law does not require Washington to provide Taiwan with armaments. That is a common but erroneous interpretation of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Note the first sentence of that paragraph: China claims Taiwan as a renegade province....a huge improvement over the usual China sees Taiwan.... claims is an accurate description of China's drive to annex the island. sees, by contrast, imputes more reality to the Chinese position and a kind of reasonableness to the Chinese side. The paragraph also mentions that Taiwan is democratic, and hints that the US position sucks. Nice work....now if we could only get rid of the Taiwan has been ruled separately formula, which falsely implies that priorly Taiwan was part of China. Unfortunately Taiwan's sovereignty issue is too complex for neat little media formulas. Readers want to suggest one?

7 comments:

skiingkow said...

.
.
.

Unfortunately Taiwan's sovereignty issue is too complex for neat little media formulas. Readers want to suggest one?

How about...

"The PRC, which has never ruled Taiwan, has vowed to annex the country ever since the aftermath of the civil war when deposed Chinese ruler Chiang Kai-Shek installed his own government on the island in 1949."
.
.
.

Anonymous said...

"Neither Japan nor China (either ROC or PRC), NOT EVEN THE FORMOSANS have legally formalized claim to Formosa, an unsettled question in Uncle Sam’s custody under SFPT(*)."


(*) San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed between 48 allied powers and Japan on September 8, 1951, effective April 28, 1952 laid out the law in regard of the “interim status” of Taiwan. No known superseding international treaty has finalized the legal international status of the former Japanese territory.

The PRC claim over Taiwan? Much ado about nothing. PRC’s posturing amounts to a dragon dancing amidst the din of firecrackers. In the frenzy of the festival, abetting the dragon could prove a hazard. Conversely, dousing the beast prevents carbuncles igniting it.

Although I could expound further to fill you in, I’d rather you go to my sources. Key words: Formosa Betrayed, Formosa Calling, Let Taiwan be Taiwan, Island in the Stream, Taiwan international status, interim status, Taiwan cession under SFPT, Taiwan separate customs territory under TRA, unincorporated territory under USMG. Jeff Geer, Roger Lin. Richard Hartzell…

Getting to the bottom of the Geer/Lin/Hartzell view of where things stand for present day Taiwan will challenge the reader’s assumptions. But humility coupled with a desire to learn will get you a long way. Gird yourself.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to you, Michael, for having so swiftly allowed my post. I had worked long to get to the gist of things as I see them.

A few days ago, I stumbled on the following, favor of New Taiwan Ilha Formosa. If you have not been aware of it yet, it stroke me as a rehash of your oft expressed view on China crying provocation. To the informed, it starts getting into its own on page 85.

On the "New Taiwan Ilha Formosa" website, scroll down "What's new?", right column.

Prof. Alan Wachman: Washington Succumbs to the PRC�s Diplomacy of Panic

Tim Maddog said...

I don't see "claims" as even a slight improvement over "sees."

Here's the simplest formulation, which can be used in any context where China threatens Taiwan or pretends to have been "provoked":
- - -
The PRC flag has never flown over Taiwan.
- - -

Eight words. Just as easy to copy and paste as the lies and distortions that so frequently get published:
- - -
Taiwan and China ... split in 1949...
- - -

Follow the link to see 300 or more examples of that lie.

Tim Maddog

Michael Turton said...

I see "claims" as a far more accurate depiction, man, since it is what the PRC does. But I also see your point too.

Michael

Tommy said...

It's a small difference.

If you see something, you believe it is true. Think of the phrase "Seeing is believing."

However, you can claim something while knowing that your claim is spurious.

"Claims Taiwan" also indicates by nature the existance of rival claimants. "Sees" does not.

Tim Maddog said...

Thomas, you're partially correct about the difference in meaning between "sees" and "claims," but I think you and Michael both overlooked this legal definition of "claim":
- - -
Asserting a right in court that is the result of certain occurrences or facts which give rise to an action enforceable at law.
- - -

Think of examples such as this:
- - -
Britain claims territory in Antarctica and near the Falklands
- - -

... something which is often done by planting the flag of one's country:
- - -
Last August, a team of Russian scientists and legislators trekked to the North Pole and plunged through the ice pack into the abyss, descending more than two miles through inky darkness to the bottom of the ocean.

There, explorers planted Russia’s flag and, upon surfacing, declared that the feat had strengthened Moscow’s claims to nearly half the Arctic seabed. The ensuing global headlines fueled debate over polar territorial claims.

- - -

And remember the saying about "possession [being] nine tenths of the law" in relation to this:
- - -
The homestead principle and squatter's rights embody the most basic concept of property and ownership, which can be summed up by the adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law"; in other words, "the person who uses the property owns it".

[...]

The homestead principle is the idea that if no one is using or possessing property, the first person to claim it and use it consistently over a period of time owns the property.
- - -

So until the truth about the PRC flag never having flown over Taiwan is added, replacing "sees" with "claims" won't be even a slight improvement. If they're going to put a "claim" in the news over and over again, the facts should be presented first, like this:
- - -
Even though the PRC flag has never flown over Taiwan, China claims that...
- - -

Notice the extra word -- "that" -- which I put after "claims" in order to distinguish the dubious ideological claim from a recognized territorial one.

Unless a report is specifically pulling back the curtain to reveal China's false claims (ideological or territorial, doesn't matter), wouldn't it be best for journos to simply leave the falsehoods out and report the relevant facts?

Tim Maddog