Tag: taiwan

When in the 1970s it became increasingly clear Taipei and its allies in the United States were no longer going to be able to postpone Washington’s recognition of the Chinese Communist Party government in Beijing, the longtime dictator of Taiwan, Chiang Kai-shek, grasped for a solution to the problem of how his regime was to survive de-recognition as the official government of China.

The answer? Democratization.

This strategy, which his successors embraced and ultimately fulfilled over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, proved far-sighted.

Taiwan’s democratization process began in the late 1970s, marking a significant shift from decades of authoritarian rule under the Kuomintang (KMT). The death of Chiang Kai-shek in 1975 and the ascension of his son, Chiang Ching-kuo, initiated gradual political liberalization. In the late 1970s, internal and external pressures, including Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation following the United Nations’ recognition of the People’s Republic of China, forced the KMT to consider reforms.

In 1986, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was formed, despite the ongoing martial law. This was a critical moment, as it was the first opposition party allowed in Taiwan since the KMT’s rule began. In 1987, Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law, which had been in place since 1949, signaling the beginning of a more open political environment.

Following Chiang Ching-kuo’s death in 1988, his successor, Lee Teng-hui, further advanced democratic reforms. Under Lee’s leadership, Taiwan saw the end of the “Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion” in 1991, which had allowed the KMT to govern without elections. Lee also oversaw the first direct presidential election in 1996, in which he won, solidifying Taiwan’s transition to a full democracy.

By the late 1990s, Taiwan had established a multi-party system with regular, competitive elections, marking a successful transition from one-party rule to a vibrant democracy.

Keep reading

Given that official Washington seems increasingly determined to fight Beijing over Taiwan, concerned Americans are right to wonder: how did the question of Taiwan come to be of such purported importance to these global powers?

While several closer islands, such as the Penghu (or the Pescadores as they are now known), were incorporated into the Chinese polity during the period of Ming blue water exploration in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Formosa (or Taiwan as it came to be known) never was.

After shuttering its large scale naval activities in the mid-fifteenth century, the Ming were thereafter largely content to let the rival trading companies of the Portuguese and Dutch quarrel for influence on Formosa, where trade revolved around tea and camphor.

In an odd bit of history repeating itself, the island first became a central focus of a ruling mainland Chinese regime as a result of a civil war that needed concluding: displaced by the invading Manchurian forces (the eventual Qing), in 1661 what remained of the Han, Ming ruling clique retreated to Formosa. It was following their ultimate defeat in 1683 that Formosa started to become ethically and administratively integrated into China (a process completed around a century later).

Despite its import as a trading hub in the centuries thereafter, when the Japanese took possession of Formosa at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), per the terms of the Treaty Shimonoseki (1885), the island’s new rulers found a society, economy, and polity virtually untouched by modernity.

And while initially brutal, putting down an anti-Japanese insurgency of emigre Han Chinese and native Taiwanese, the Japanese colonial administration of the island, which lasted until the end of World War II, would see the island transformed into an educated, urbanized, and rationalized society with living standards far higher than on the mainland.

Despite the increasing gap, most Taiwanese, whose cultural links with the mainland were still strong, were open to rejoining mainland China when the war finally ended—although it is worth noting that this willingness proved short-lived, the Kuomintang (KMT) regime needing to viciously suppress a mass uprising against its terrible misrule in 1947.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at whose feet a great deal of blame for a whole host of problems may be laid, also laid the foundation stone for misadventure in dealing with China, including Taiwan.

Indeed, while there was a reasonable possibility that Taiwan could have been its own independent country at the end of the Second World War, it was FDR and his successor, Harry Truman, who ensured this would not happen.

Ignoring the wisdom of multiple of his predecessors, who had refused to get involved either in internal Chinese squabbles or its feuds with neighboring Japan, FDR began supporting the KMT regime of Chiang Kai-Shek.

Keep reading

With 5 months remaining until the November elections, candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump have, over the last few months, staked out positions on key issues on the geopolitical stage. One of the more noteworthy examples was Trump’s acquiescent opinion given to reporters about how Congressional Republicans could get behind the controversial military aid package passed in May.

Another flashpoint was Joe Biden’s recent comments on whether the United States would militarily intervene if China launched an attack against Taiwan.

In an interview with TIME, Biden gave his best shot at “clarifying” his position on the use of American bodies, ships, and planes to defend Taiwan

“It would depend on the circumstances. You know, by the way, I’ve made clear to Xi Jinping that we agree with—we signed on to previous presidents going way back—to the policy of, that, it is we are not seeking independence for Taiwan nor will we, in fact, not defend Taiwan if they if, if China unilaterally tries to change the status. And so we’re continuing to supply capacity. And, and we’ve been in consultation with our allies in the region,” said the President.

When asked to re-clarify if he is not ruling out US troops being deployed, he responded that he was “not ruling out using US military force,” adding that there “is a distinction between deploying on the ground, air power and naval power, etc.”

It’s no secret that Biden has difficulty communicating as exhibited by the constant mistakes and loss of thought train in the TIME interview, but this section underlines the consequences of that as regards a conflict that would take place over 8,000 miles away and 12 hours from Washington.

It’s a conflict where Washington’s opponent sits one-eightieth of that distance away from their target, and where POTUS has moments to decide how to respond to a conflict that’s predicted to be decided itself in just moments.

Keep reading

Europe is suffering its largest land conflict since the Second World War in Ukraine. This fight could turn out to be a mere overture if war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait. Tensions are high: Congress recently approved $8.1 billion for Taipei and elsewhere in the Pacific, while the president has repeatedly said that he would defend Taiwan. That would put the United States into a conflict potentially like no other, with nuclear weapons at 10 paces.

Yet those most determined to escalate America’s involvement in the Russo–Ukrainian war insist that there is nothing to worry about. If only the U.S. holds firm in Ukraine, the Chinese will run for cover over Taiwan. Yet the claim that Beijing would fear Washington when the latter refuses to intervene on Kiev’s behalf, allowing Moscow’s aggression to advance, seems illogical at best. Indeed, Johns Hopkins’s Hal Brands warned that this stance may “have convinced Beijing that the United States just won’t fight a conventional war against a nuclear-armed rival.” Hence China’s ongoing nuclear build-up.

Worse, American policy seems more likely to encourage than discourage such a conflict. Rather than reassure the People’s Republic of China that its red lines won’t be crossed, the administration is stationing American forces in Taiwan, emphasizing that nation’s value in constraining China, and saying little as congressional leaders flaunt ties with Taipei. Leading Republicans, including a former secretary of state and national security adviser, advocate recognizing Taiwan as the Republic of China. It is almost as if Washington’s policy elite wants war with the PRC.

They shouldn’t. 

Keep reading