LOLz

Feb 10, 2014, New Yorker. From here. UPDATE: Nope, dates from 1997.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Podcasting: The Ketagalen Project

The Ketagalen Project is a podcast on topics of interest. I've long been wanting to give them a shout-out here, but I am sooo absent minded, I'm constantly forgetting. Please forgive me, guys! So here is their latest piece on a theatrical adaptation of a 1970s novel, Crystal Boys, about gay life in the 70s in Taiwan. They also do political stuff, like this podcast with the great Peter Chow on Taiwan and trade. Go thou and listen!
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Paper on Parade: Globalization, Social Justice Issues, Political and Economic Nationalism in Taiwan: An Explanation of the Limited Resurgence of the DPP during 2008–2012

In this installment in our regularly irregular feature of a Taiwan-centered scholarly work, we look at Globalization, Social Justice Issues, Political and Economic Nationalism in Taiwan: An Explanation of the Limited Resurgence of the DPP during 2008–2012 (China Quarterly, Dec 2013) by Dongtao Qi of the National University of Singapore. Let's dial up some appropriately tense and adventurous music, and off we go.

The paper's opening urks up a pile of KMT propaganda claims....

Scholars and pundits have already identified the failures of former president Chen Shui-bian 陳水扁and his administration which led to their defeat in the 2008 elections, including the administration’s dissatisfactory economic performance supposedly owing to its closed-door China policy, the corruption scandals surrounding President Chen and his family members, increased ethnic conflicts and social instability, and the deterioration in Taiwan–US relations caused by Chen’s radical and provocative pro-independence policies.

...no doubt because the scholars cited for them include John Copper, whose political preferences will be well known to anyone who follows Taiwan, and disaffected DPP politician Lin Cho-sui. The accusation of increasing ethnic conflict is particularly odious. Nevertheless, if you can work your way past that ugly paragraph, the paper offers a wealth of information, data, and observations and is very even handed and perceptive.

The paper starts off by identifying five propositions that underlie its perspective (1) Taiwanese expect the government to pursue economic growth policies and policies that distribute growth fairly; (2) globalization impacts both of these goals outlined in (1) positively and negatively; (3) cross-strait economic relations are the most important form of Taiwan's globalization since the late 1990s; (4) the DPP since 2008 has shifted its platform

"...from identity-oriented political nationalism to social justice-oriented economic nationalism. At the local level, it has further decoupled social justice issues from economic nationalism in order to tackle local social justice issues better without the constraints of nationalist ideology."

and (5) the KMT won in 2012 because the public believed only the KMT could get China to give, economically, to Taiwan.

One thing I liked very much about this paper was the author's forthright conclusion about the Deep Greens -- they support the DPP not just because it appeals to their Taiwanese nationalism but also because it is the party of social justice. He goes on to say that the KMT-DPP split is in a way a national-local split:

...Taiwanese people feel comfortable giving local and legislative power to the DPP because the DPP seems more willing and capable to fulfil the government’s responsibility of addressing various social justice issues. However, the voters gave the state power to the KMT because it seemed more likely to fulfil the government’s responsibility of developing Taiwan’s economy based on a more flexible political nationalism that promotes cross-Strait relations.

This is an important observation, and shows how, if social justice issues can be made to impact the 2014 local elections, then the DPP may benefit. It also reflects the reality of local administration on Taiwan -- the worst administrated counties and cities in Taiwan in local polls are mostly run by the KMT.

Qi then moves to a discussion of the way globalization (= primarily economic relations with China) impacts Taiwan, and provides some of the really great data that fill this paper:

Lin’s research shows that, in 1992, while about 40 per cent of Taiwanese identified themselves as middle class, that figure had fallen to about 32 per cent in 2007. In contrast, during the same period, the percentage of Taiwanese identifying themselves as lower middle/lower/working class increased from about 50 per cent to about 64 per cent.

Brutal. I've posted the data on labor productivity that shows how the Ma Administration period has been especially bad for Taiwanese. Qi comes back to his point that support for the DPP rests on the twin pillars of both social justice and Taiwanese nationalism, then tosses in some data to show that Taiwanese regard the DPP as the social justice party and the KMT as the party of the rich....

For example, in 2008 nearly half of all people surveyed believed that the KMT represented the interests of the rich and powerful, whilst 51.1 per cent believed that the DPP represented the ordinary person.

The two figures he supplies are quite interesting. He uses them to show how must people identify the two parties, but the trend lines for the KMT are interesting. For the claim that KMT/DPP represents the average person, the DPP is of course quite high, but the KMT is trending upwards towards 30% going into the 2008 election. For the reverse claim, that KMT/DPP represent the interests of the wealthy, the line showing the DPP represents the interests of the wealthy is actually trending upward towards 20% after 2004.

Imagine what this means for the 2008 election -- Ma got something like 50% of his vote, 30% of the total, from people who thought his party did not represent the interests of the average person (!). I sure would love to see some data on the kind of person who voted like that.

Defining income inequality as the ratio of average household income between the top and bottom 20%, he says....

Actual income inequality dropped almost continuously during the last six years of the DPP administration, from 6.39 in 2001 to 5.98 in 2007. In contrast, during the two KMT administrations (1991–1999; 2008–2010), income inequality had an apparently rising trend, increasing from 4.97 to 5.50 during 1991–1999 and from 6.05 to 6.17 during 2008–2011.

This ratio better captures the income inequality effect of government policies than does the Gini coefficient (which I discuss in conjunction with a memorable bit of silliness from Bloomberg). It shows concretely the effect of the rises in social welfare spending under the Chen Administration, despite criticisms from social justice groups.

Who voted for the DPP in 2008? Qi runs the numbers and finds groups we all know: farmers, workers, southerners, the less educated, the elderly, all who had suffered from the economic changes. In the 1996 election, he observes, such groups voted KMT. In 2000 they switched, a trend observed again in subsequent elections. This shift among less privileged voters explains The Great Vote Shift of millions of votes over the three elections of 1996-2004 from the KMT to the DPP. It may contain an ominous signal for likely KMT candidate Sean Lien in the Taipei mayor election -- less privileged voters rejected his uber-wealthy Dad, Lien Chan, in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

But Qi goes one better. Is the vote from the less privileged because they are voting out of economic nationalism? Nope! he finds that "even after controlling for Taiwanese nationalist sentiment, the less privileged Taiwanese were still significantly more likely to vote for the DPP in 2004, 2008, and 2012." This ought to signal the DPP that an overtly social justice platform can win them more votes.

After noting that Tsai Ing-wen had muted the parties political nationalism and shifted to economic nationalism, he then goes over the poor performance of the Ma Administration in 2008-12 period. On key indicators of monthly real wages, income inequality, raw economic growth, and unemployment, the Ma Administration generally did not perform as well as the Chen Administration.

He also delves into the attitudes of privileged and less privileged groups towards ECFA and relations with China. Even less privileged groups were not really very unhappy; the major impacts from ECFA had not been felt in 2012. Qi identifies other factors that may have affected the DPP's election prospects in 2012, including a five percent decline in Taiwanese nationalist sentiment.

Despite all the interesting data, his conclusion is pedestrian, very academic and very conservative...

Social justice-oriented economic nationalism is a new battlefield created by the DPP since 2008 and has helped to restore its popular support. Therefore, it is likely that the DPP will continue with a balanced combination of political and economic nationalism that emphasizes both national security and the ordinary people’s welfare in its promotion of Taiwanese nationalism and struggle for local and national power.

His formulation of "social justice-oriented economic nationalism" is a useful way to think about the DPP's policy in the 2008-2012 period, and shows, once again, how lucky the DPP was that the KMT decided to shut Chen Shui-bian up, so that Tsai could heal the party and move it forward. It also shows the great weakness of DPP Chairman Su Tseng-cheng, who despite his brains and competence, is likely to be associated with the "old" form of political nationalism in many minds, whereas Tsai Ing-wen comes without that baggage (but without his experience). With so many people going into this critical election period facing stagnant incomes and stunted economic prospects, the appeal of the DPP's platform of social justice has good potential to broaden. However, so much depends on the conduct of the election campaign itself...
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Will China become less bellicose if it is a democracy?

Because these bugs hover, you can often get shots of them in midair.

I was reading the Taipei Times editorializing on the history textbook issue (quality of editorials has plummeted since J Michael Cole has left) and noticed its stance on the Senkakus:

The Japanese government’s decision that its students should be taught that Dokdo, which is governed by Seoul, and the Diaoyutais, which belong to Taiwan but are governed by Tokyo, all belong to Japan, is untenable legally and in the face of international realities.

Some argue that if China becomes a democracy it will cease to be expansionist. Hmmm... certainly that has not been the case with some other large democracies I could name. But here in Taiwan we have an example of a democratic government in the Chinese cultural sphere -- and the major pro-Taiwan paper writes ahistorical crap like "Taiwan owns the Senkakus". A puny but nominally democratic government, without much military, nevertheless insists on claiming its neighbors' territories, including -- formally -- all of China. Because it thinks it is China. So... how will China behave?

Can the Taipei Times be more critical of these claims?
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Linkfest

I had some fun shooting bees out in our excellent weather.

______________
Daily Links:

• Record 2.85 million Chinese visit Taiwan
• The Diplomat: China's Military is Weaker than You Think, and More dangerous
• Ma pledges to boost the economy -- with the Free Economic Zones, a 1960s policy, and joining the TPP, which is collapsing of its own odiousness at the moment. 
• China Post calls for history books to do justice to the Taiwan Republic of 1895
• This piece on America turning Japanese also has lessons for Taiwan
• Richard Bush at Brookings on US arms sales to Taiwan
• Sankeng Old Street, Taoyuan. Some bright pics.
• Emei Bridge and lookout, Sanwan
• J Michael on The Status Quo -- which is, let's never forget, a form of independence
• Asahi Shimbun says China is mulling another illegal ADIZ over the South China Sea.
• When the China Blog at Time starts wondering whether China and Japan will go to war....

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

William Lai goes all presidential

Rice seedlings and an assembly line for packing them for shipment to planters.

And the Chen Shui-bian mantle shifts to Tainan Mayor William Lai (Taipei Times):

Greater Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) said yesterday that his municipality refused to adopt revised high-school curriculum outlines established by the Ministry of Education, adding that all municipal high schools would keep the current outlines.

The new history guidelines appear to be largely pro-China propaganda. Lai is burnishing his local credentials and his pro-Taiwan credentials, but this is a move that will enable him to appear as a standard bearer of the Taiwan identity.... should he feel at all Presidential....
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Shorts, links, events

You can watch the monthly pavilion from here.

Dr. Fell at SOAS Taiwan Studies says:

The paperback of Taiwanese Identity in the 21st Century has now been published by our Research on Taiwan book series. The book edited by Jens Damm and Gunter Schubert examines the issue of Taiwanese identity from a range of perspectives.

For details see: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415736916/
It is also available on Amazon (but 博客來 does not yet have paperback)

If your libraries do not yet have a copy, please do lobby your librarians and now we have the paperback it's even affordable for courses and students!

We are approaching a very active time for Taiwan studies events in early-mid February, including a book launch event in London for Taiwanese Identity in the 21st century, our annual Taiwan Studies lecture and Taiwan Film Week (Feb 10-14). For details see
http://www.soas.ac.uk/taiwanstudies/events/

Please do pass on the information to contacts in the EU.

You can also keep up with our activities via our facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SOASCentreofTaiwanStudies

LINKS:

• Economic growth was 2% in 2013. Another rousing success for ECFA! Ma's average growth is below Chen's; the latter was riding the Golden Age of China investment.
• CNN: 45 Taiwanese foods we can't live without 
• Taiwan fraudsters expand to Bangladesh
• Roiling the Waters -- argues China should be made to feel uncomfortable, or else it will continue its actions. With more comments here.
• Tokyo-Delhi Axis irritates Beijing.
• Government to government meeting, all public and official, between the ROC and PRC.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

The Strange Discourse of the Left and Right on China

Clearing a traffic jam on a Changhua street.

I emailed a writer of a piece on a lefty website today, asking him how he thought China could be a force for peace. Got this doozy of a fantasy world back:

I have not noticed that China has engaged in any aggressive wars, leaving occupying troops behind.

The two sides are mirror images of each other. Point out that China is an imperialist, expansionist state, and righties will clap their hands and lefties will... remain silent. Or deny it. The vast silence on the Left on China means that the Left is deeply complicit in China's expansion and all the deaths that are certain to follow. Not to worry! When China makes its move, it will of course be Washington's fault.

Meanwhile, point out that the US is an imperialist, militaristic state, and lefties will clap their hands while the Establishment and righties... remain silent. Or deny it. The vast silence... well, you know the drill. Nothing lowers IQ like ideology. Even LSD can't match its hallucinations...

It is hard to find pieces that acknowledge the real dynamic out here in Asia, one hegemonic power struggling to retain its grip, another on the rise, claiming the territories of its neighbors and arming for war, driving a third power, Japan, to re-arm, and playing into the hands of Japan's right. *sigh*

But sometimes analyses are done right. John Feffer of FPIF turned in a very strong piece on Japan's resurgent militarism, but pointing out that China is a belligerent, aggressive state, and the US is an imperial one. Not often you see what China is acknowledged by lefties.

Asked whether, given his analogy, he would consider deescalating tensions with China at the moment, Abe evidently said no, not as long as that country continues to build up its military. (Japan’s chief cabinet secretary quickly insisted that the prime minister was not predicting a new war.) Given a rising anti-Japanese nationalism in China, a growing regional arms race, and increasingly aggressive Chinese claims to islands near energy-rich deposits in regional seas, this might seem to be a moment to calm the waters, so to speak.

But not for the Obama administration, which recently welcomed Abe’s decision to put more money into new weaponry for the Japanese military. To this world of rising tensions Washington has, in recent years, added a much ballyhooed new focus on Asia, a “pivot” or “rebalancing” to the region. Its emphasis has clearly been on heightening tensions by organizing a string of countries against a rising China, triggering old Cold War-era Chinese fears of encirclement (or “containment,” as it was called in those days). Admittedly, as TomDispatch regular John Feffer, co-director of the website Foreign Policy in Focus, so cannily explains, Obama’s pivot is proving remarkably heavy on the rhetoric and light on new military might. Fans of World War I will, however, remember that enough heated rhetoric, combined with unexpected small “incidents,” can be quite effective in ratcheting up tensions to the breaking point. “Retreat” can sound like “charge” in the right mouths.

Thanks, John. It's a long, interesting piece.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

FTV: The banality of Changhua, the Beauty of Wuling Farm

Another trip with FTV, to Changhua and the incomparable Wuling Farm. Shot above is the 7A just above Nanshan. It was fogged over, but at Wuling Farm, the sky was picture perfect... Click the READ MORE to see more and read some interesting information about... Beidou?

Taiwan Offshoring

No time for blogging for a couple more days...

Commonwealth strikes again with two great pieces on offshoring Taiwan's wealth here and here.

Oh, and J Michael Cole on the truck driver who crashed into the presidential office
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

China's Offshored Wealth

There is only one story you should be reading today: This ICIJ account of China's offshored wealth. Much too long and no point in excerpting here. Over 10,000 Taiwanese names in the ICIJ's records as well, and they worked with Commonwealth Magazine. Can't wait to see Commonwealth's report on it. They have a survey on Taiwan's widening rich-poor gap here.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Yanshui with FTV

Last weekend I was out and about with FTV again in Nantou, Miaoli, and Yanshui in Tainan. Pictured above is the Bridge to Nowhere in Nantou, a suspension bridge across a gorge. You walk across and walk back, and pay for the privilege. There is another one near Jhushan, and they both rake in the cash. Total tourist trap, avoid at all costs.

However, I made my first real trip to Yanshui in Tainan with FTV. I've passed through before, but I never realized what a great little town it is. There are hordes of old buildings lying around, a port, an Old Street, and a beautiful wooden structure from the 19th century, a rarity in Taiwan. Yanshui was a key port in the 19th century, but has long since declined. Well worth a day trip, it is small enough to walk around and offers plenty of camera-friendly moments. I've ignored the famous temple there where everyone goes to be pummeled with fireworks. Our local guide told us that the fireworks activity, while popular with both locals and foreigners, is wrong and disrespectful to the god. Onward to the really interesting stuff below the READ MORE fold!

Contested History, again

A cha hua, camellia blossom.

This week saw two struggles over Taiwan history. The first took place at National Chengkung Universty, where the students voted to name a square after Deng Nan-jung, the pro-democracy and free speech advocate. J Michael Cole had excellent coverage last week. The Taipei Times editorialized the other day:

While the university administrator’s move to dismiss the vote betrayed the spirit of democracy, the arguments of history professor Wang Wen-hsia (王文霞) in expressing her opposition to the naming of the plaza underestimated Deng’s efforts and ignored the importance of the power transition in Taiwan’s democratic development. Wang had described Deng’s self-immolation as a radical way to cope with challenges in life, and compared him to Islamist bombers who “end their lives and put others’ lives in danger when things did not go their way.”

I suspect there's a sly reference here in "putting other's lives in danger" -- it's a claim of KMT propaganda attacks on Deng that he put his young daughter in danger when he burned himself to death, thus showing he had no morals (commenter below). Deng's widow ripped Wang in an interview. Wang spewed the usual denials and backtracking, but the students had uploaded both transcripts and video to the internet. No escape.

The other is more attacks on Taiwan history via textbook changes by the Ma Administration. A DPP legislator criticized them:

According to Cheng, during a public hearing held by the Ministry of Education’s National Academy for Educational Research in Taipei on Friday, Fo Guang University professor Hsieh Ta-ning (謝大寧), who is also a member of the curriculum outlines adjustment task force headed by National Taiwan University professor Wang Hsiao-po (王曉波), said that the adjustments mainly focused on changing incorrect words in the curriculum, making information presented by the curriculum more complete, and making sure that the content was in accordance with the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution.

The article points out that Hsieh Ta-ning is also the head of Chinese Integration Association. Heh.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Scott Simon Rocks the Blog World (and other links)

A sausage vendor in Jiji.

Just to point you to something really great, longtime anthropologist Scott Simon has opened a blog, Anthropology of Taiwan. Dr. Simon is brilliant and insightful. Can't wait! Other links...
_________________
Daily Links:

• Ben rips the attack on Deng Nan-jung in an excellent post on character assassination.
• Taiwanese mil recruiters looking to recruit out of Burma?
• Taiwan KOM is one of world's toughest bike races.
• Lee Teng-hui is a voice of sanity on Senkaku issue, says Japan owns the islands.
• ACER posts third year of losses in a row. One of the nation's flagship brands...
• Taiwan unveils air to ground missile.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Clarifying the Cross Strait Situation, Redux: Etzioni in The Diplomat

A Yanshui Street corner.

Amitai Etzioni, longtime international affairs expert, writes on the strategic ambiguity of the US commitment to Taiwan in The Diplomat....

True, even if the restraint both sides imposed on themselves (and on their respective hawks) is made more explicit, either side could violate it. However, the more explicit the agreement the less likely is that it will be subject to misunderstandings and the more likely it is to survive. It may well be impossible at this stage to turn the implicit understanding, such as there is – if there is one – into an explicit one; however, the more than it can be clarified and solidified, the more this important simmering point of conflict can be assuaged.

I am quite aware of the theories of the merits of “creative ambiguities”; they can enable one to squeeze extra leverage out of the relatively small amounts of power. In East Asia, however, they are much more likely to produce miscalculations and conflicts than significant gains.

Finally, reducing the tension on this issue would help to narrow the differences between the U.S. and China, especially if integrated into a more general policy of mutually assured restraint. That would encourage both states to focus on the many issues in which they have shared or complementary interests.

This is a common argument, and if the reader feels like searching the internet, many iterations of the call for clarifying or removing the ambiguity in the US commitment may be found over the years. The reason that such a move has never been made, however, is obvious: it's a really bad idea. Ambiguity serves the needs of all three governments and defuses tension, whereas clarity would lead inevitably to confrontation and increased tension.

To understand what would really happen, one only needs to look at other (bogus) territorial claims of China, such as Arunachal Pradesh, the Senkakus, and the South China Sea. In each of those cases, the sovereignty of the current possessor and the demands of China's manufactured claim are both clear, meeting Etzioni's demand for clarity. The result is that each claim is a zero-sum game which China treats as non-negotiable, meaning that each of these claims is in a state of permanent tension which cannot be resolved. Indeed, in the South China Sea violence has already occurred, most notably in the 1970s when China annexed 24 Vietnamese islands. It seems sometimes that IR theorists like Etzioni are unable to see China for the belligerent, intransigent, expanionist power that it is, and are thus unable to see the consequences of its positions clearly. Instead their theoretical frameworks fog over the grim reality.

In the Senkakus the situation is crystal clear: we have an exact analogy for Taiwan, a foreign territory, Japan, backed by the US with strong and periodically renewed clarity. Everyone knows that the Senkakus are currently Japanese, that China wants to annex them, and that the US will defend them.

Note first that the Senkaku situation is one marked by massive and escalating tension, one which increasingly appears will lead to war within a few years. Clarity has not lead to relaxation of tension; quite the opposite. It has lead to an increase and a polarization of tension.

The Senkakus also make clear another issue with clarity of commitment. Etzioni argues...

So this might be seen as a basis for an implicit agreement. We oppose a declaration of independence; China forgoes the use of force.”

...except that Etzioni doesn't make clear the clearly scary corollary of clear commitment: if China does use force, the US has to respond with force. D'oh. Last year China promulgated an illegal ADIZ over Japanese territory. This compelled the US to take action, to fly B-52s into the airspace to show Beijing that the US commitment remained and that its claims were bogus. Once the US clarifies its position on Taiwan, it no longer has wiggle room. The President's hands are tied. And what President wants that?

Clarity on the Senkakus also raises another issue: once you have clear lines, they are subject to the relentless nibbling that characterizes China's long-term strategy. The ADIZ is a good example of China constantly pushing, little by little, at the edges of the policy, forcing Japan to respond, which in turn enables China to label Tokyo "provocative" (astonishingly, Tokyo's PR campaign is even more inept than Beijing's). In the Taiwan situation Beijing does not have the leverage of clear lines. It has no idea what might happen and nothing to grab onto. This is one factor among many that leads, ironically, to restraint.

Finally, Etzioni fails to see why Beijing would never agree to such a deal, because something is missing from his writing: the people of Taiwan. Like so many in Washington, Etzioni imagines that the Taiwan issue is a Washington-Beijing issue, and can be addressed by joint action among the High and Mighty without paying any attention to the people of Taiwan, who, in the kind of realpolitik calculus that drives Washington thinking, exist, at best, merely to be betrayed. But of course this is rank nonsense. The starting point to any discussion of Whither Taiwan? has to be how the locals will react. Beijing understands this very well, Washington, not at all, as Etzioni's omission shows.

To accept a clear situation in which Beijing agrees not to use force if Washington doesn't back independence is, in essence, to accept an independent Taiwan. Taiwan doesn't want to be part of China; the only thing keeping Beijing in the local discussion is its threat to murder and maim the people of Taiwan if they don't annex themselves to China. Without the threat of war, Taiwan will simply (continue to) go its own way and will never voluntarily annex itself to China. Even Ma's pro-China policies are made possible only by the understanding that Beijing is underpinning Ma's strategies with its own threat of force. Beijing understands this perfectly, and thus, would never accept such a commitment. This whole discussion is pointless.

Further, the US already doesn't support Taiwan independence. What exactly does Beijing gain from a promise for the US to do something it is already doing without any horse trading?

No, the current lack of clarity suits everyone. It gives all three sides space to present to their domestic populations that everything is ok: Beijing can promise its rabid nationalists that annexation of Taiwan is, like fusion power, inevitable and always just around the corner, Taipei can promise its people that big brother in DC is going to watch over them, and the US can promise its people that confrontation is minimized and we haven’t promised to send good US boys to die in Asia again. It also permits both Beijing and Washington to pretend they are not in confrontation over Taiwan, relaxing tensions.

A little.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!