US-China Forum (English)
                             
  • Home
  • Weekly Forum
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Special Events
  • Donate
  • Article
  • 中文

Can Taiwan Practice An Honest Democracy Leading to a Successful Reunification? - Taiping Island a Test Case

8/27/2016

0 Comments

 
​Mainstream and Organic Views
Ifay Chang​
​Following the U.S. 'Pivot to Asia' policy and the rising tension in the South China Sea (SCS), the 'Cross-Strait' has once again become a hot spot moving away from a 'peaceful gradual Chinese internal reunification' agenda towards an 'impossible treacherous false independence' path. Of course, the victory of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in this year's presidential election is one basic cause and consequence for cooling off the cross-strait cooperative pro-business economic development path (the previous Administration, Ma Ying-Jeou (KMT) had cultivated with Mainland in the past eight years) and flaring up a wishful but dangerous anti-Mainland China thinking and false independence movement (the current leader Tsai Ing-Wen (DPP) coyly promoted 'independence' ever since she took office).
 
The most significant and distinct ideological difference between the KMT and DPP is the following: The KMT recognizes one China and the official agreement reached by the two cross-strait administrations in 1992, commonly referred to as 1992 Mutual Understanding. The U.S. has long committed since 1970's to the recognition of one China thus the U.S. has been in agreement with KMT in maintaining a warm and progressive Cross-Strait relation. Whereas, the DPP is purposefully trying to walk away from the 1992 Mutual Understanding to pursue an independence attempt which is aggressively promoted by a faction in DPP insisting on keeping 'Taiwan Independence' in the DPP party platform as an objective. The U.S. is not sure whether or not such a direction will lead to a beneficial outcome to the U.S. in the name of world peace. Hence, the U.S. is studying the situation and the DPP behavior carefully under the still evolving China Policy.
 
The Taiwan issue is a clear one for the Mainland China, that is, Taiwan must be reunited with the mother land, sooner or later, slower or faster in pace, but never can be denied by any internal entity or any external country including the U.S., Japan or the entire United Nations. In fact, the Taiwan issue is rather clear to most countries in the world. However, the issue is surprisingly unclear in Taiwan existing as a fundamental problem facing the people of Taiwan and a serious challenge to the Taiwan governing administration. Unfortunately, the people was long misled by politicians through misinterpretation of history (even by whitewashing their textbooks to confuse the young generations) and through manipulation of democracy (by lies and fact twisting of policy issues, 政策,and people's wishes,民意, via  media). The people in Taiwan were easily gullible but we must remember: you can fool some people some of the time, even most of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time! Thus to the title question, I believe the answer is yes and let me explain.
 
Reviewing the international events, especially concerning the U.S. - China relations, the U.S. seems to be conducting a China Policy in a classroom, that is, it is a case in study; consequently, China's US policy is in a seminar style, that is, debate, argue and interpret the U.S. China Policy then issue responsive statements. As a result, the two nations engage in occasional hot rhetoric but in reality both sides wish to find mutually acceptable compromises. Since going to war is mutually destructive and unacceptable, no matter how inevitable hawks of each side chant. People in Taiwan must understand this dynamics and be realistic in cultivating a beneficial Cross-Strait policy.
 
The 'Pivot to Asia' policy is fundamental to the U.S., a correct one from the viewpoint of the U.S. interests and her necessary decision in retreating from the Middle East problems and EU turmoil. However, a correct policy does not guarantee a correct execution particularly when the case is still under study, namely, the rise of China is very dynamic and ongoing, its threat may be over exaggerated or even be elevated by the U.S. herself. The U.S. diplomatic and military moves in the East China Sea now shifting to the SCS have clearly supported my 'classroom' theory and China's corresponding counter actions fitted my 'seminar' metaphor. Hopefully, the think tanks of both sides will engage in more dialogue to complete the classroom and seminar activities into a for-credit case-study course so that others like Taiwan can take such a course and earn credits in the school of geopolitics.
 
Taiwan politicians and party politics have a false notion that Taiwan has a choice between (A) Relying on the U.S. and U.S. protégé Japan to pursue an independence movement and (B) Yielding to Mainland China to take the reunification path. In fact, the U.S. and Japan do not want to have a truly independent Taiwan, world politics tell us that a truly independent country cannot be controlled easily by another. That is why endless regime changes occur in small countries if they have geopolitical importance. From the purpose of control and influence, often supporting independence does not really mean supporting the establishment of a truly independent entity. Taiwan must understand this, moving towards independence means choosing to be controlled by your supporters. On the other hand, leaning towards reunification does not mean the total loss of identity, especially, when the mainland China is seeking to define her identity as well. Hong Kong is a living example, her former quasi-independent colonial state yields no better welfare than her present status receiving billions of investment. The longest ocean bridge linking Hong Kong, Macao and Zhu Jiang is a huge investment from Mainland to secure Hong Kong's future competitive position.
 
Singapore is often used as an example of shinning small independent nation. Is it? Singapore is situated between two large Muslim countries, Malaysia and Indonesia. Singapore has an overwhelming ethnic Chinese population but she is too far from China. She had no choice but relying on the U.S. for security, essentially turning herself as a US military base. Lee Kuan Yew was smart to play world politics; so long China's goods came through Singapore port without problem, China would let Singapore to use China to gain diplomatic leverage. Before China became strong enough, Singapore had no choice but to pick the U.S. for protection. Even though the U.S. regarded Lee as a dictator, there was no need for regime change or making Singapore a truly democratic nation so long she sides with the U.S. Taiwan is in an entirely different situation, Taiwan, in close proximity to Mainland, exports largely to the Mainland. Singapore, as a transfer port might diminish in value if other transfer routes to China could be used as substitute. Singapore’s significance as a military base for the U.S. would then diminish accordingly. However, Taiwan will remain forever as a strategic land for China's security; the people in Taiwan must appreciate their Chinese heritage and geopolitical value to the Mainland.
 
The ridiculous ruling of the arbitration court declaring Taiping Island as a rock not an island is really a good test case for people’s will in Taiwan and the real intension of the Tsai administration. The U.S. or Japan will never take the welfare of Taiwan people, especially Taiwan’s fishermen, into their hearts. Taiping Island saga proves that Taiwan cannot defend her sovereignty nor ocean rights by just taking a pro-US or pro-Japan stand. The Tsai administration cannot negotiate with Japan on Taiwan’s fishing rights (can’t even defend the existing agreement Ma administration had scored) is evidence enough for her wrong Cross-Strait policy. In contrast, by aligning with Mainland China, which values Taiwan's strategic importance forever, and by acting as a 'to be reunified' Chinese people, Taiwan can stand up and have a voice in any negotiation on the world stage. Taiwan voters must understand this political reality. 
 
People in Taiwan have enjoyed democracy for several decades; naturally, people in Taiwan have concerns whether they will lose their democracy if united with the Mainland. From an analyst viewpoint, Taiwan's democracy is as good as the people's intelligence and as valuable as it is perceived as true democracy. The likelihood of Taiwan's democracy being hijacked by party politicians is real and Taiping Island is a proven test. Tsai in her Washington Post interview on July 21, 2016, by Lally Waymouth, cited many times ‘the will of the people’ (民意) as her basis  for her policies. Is that really true? When it comes to taking a defending position in Taiping Island and SCS, the people of Taiwan have spoken but they must be clear and leave no room for politicians to be vague or to play word game. Judging on the current development in Taiwan's political affairs, the dropping of performance rating of the Tsai administration, and the boiling emotions of citizens regarding defending Taiwan’s rights (such as the Taiping Island status), one is hopeful that Taiwan's people do understand the importance of the Cross-Strait relationship and its dynamics discussed above.  
 
So to answer the title question, the answer is yes! Taiwan must and can practice an honest democracy to pursue a successful reunification policy to benefit the people!
0 Comments

GOP Changes Three No Trump to Four Diamonds But Needs One More Diamond to Win (The Bridge Game)

8/20/2016

0 Comments

 
Dr. Wordman
 
​Abstract
The 2016 Presidential Election is full of surprises of which the Trump phenomenon is most exciting not only in its evolving process but also in its possible outcome in the end. This essay is written shortly before Trump had secured his Republican Nomination but is updated after he had secured the nomination. The analysis regarding the GOP’s gear switching from No Trump to Accepting Trump is still interesting. Using the terminology of Bridge Game to describe this change makes it easy to understand. Making a four-diamond bid is asking a five diamond response to make a game. Defining and constructing a collaborative and productive US-China relation is the Fifth Diamond that Trump would need to make a bridge game.  I venture to say that the Republicans do have a chance to win the 2016 presidential election if Trump and GOP bid and play a ‘Five Diamond’ game.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The Trump phenomenon has been gaining more momentum after the GOP candidate won a sweeping victory on 4/26/2016 in five primaries of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This impressive result on top of Trump’s overwhelming win in the states of Arizona and New York, Trump had gained 956 delegates of the1237 required to snatch the GOP nomination. The 956 number represents 48.5% of the 1970 total delegates counted up to the last primary contest. Subtracting 124 un-committed delegates from the total count of 1970, the 956 number represents 52% of the committed delegates who will vote for Trump at the GOP convention in Cleveland. Sure enough, Trump snatched the Republican Presidential Nomination on 7/21/2016.
 
In the 2016 presidential election, there had been over 17 significant Republican candidates starting the race. The GOP party establishment had its favorite and adopted a no Trump strategy - anybody but Trump strategy. Trump denounced this unfair play and his supporters grew as Trump began winning in the primary process. The GOP party seems to base the no Trump approach on the following three no trumps:
1. Trump is not an insider of the GOP organization
2. Trump has challenged the party establishment and its mechanism and
3. Trump comes from the New York State, a Democratic State having nearly zero chance to win for Republicans.
Therefore, the GOP elites stuck to the Three No Trump game plan. They pushed for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and ignored Trump.
 
Reviewing the GOP primaries held, Trump not only has remained in the race, he is winning. Despite of the media’s (both left and right) bashing Trump’s manners and rough languages, Trump gained momentum and the number of his followers at his campaign rallies exploded. Senator Ted Cruz and Former Governor John Kasich joining hands as a last ditch effort to stop Trump failed in the 4/26/2016 primary contests. Yet Trump won and then declared himself a presumptive Presidential Nominee. The 4/26/16 GOP primary result may be a wake-up call to the GOP, even Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is publicly stating that he is very pleased with Trump’s foreign policy speech, declaring it a broad vision with substance. This and other public comments in the GOP camp seem to suggest that the GOP is changing the three No Trump bid to a four diamond game.
 
What is the rational for changing to a four diamonds bid? The reasons may be summarized as follows:
Diamond 1. Trump is a billionaire but he is winning the support of the working class which can be very helpful in the general election. His supporters believe that he is telling the truth in contrast to his opponent Hillary.
Diamond 2. Trump is self-financing his presidential campaign which can save money for GOP to focus on contests for congressional seats. This is a great opportunity to rally both presidential and Congressional elections coherently.
Diamond 3. People’s ultimate concern is still on domestic issues with first priority on jobs and money in their pockets. He who can create jobs will be the winner.
Diamond 4. Trump’s business sense, negotiation skills and aggressive, conservative and bottom-line oriented problem solving approach are in line with GOP principles. Tough talk can be empty without real skills, Trump, making money through his business skills is favored over Hillary, making money by delivering speeches.
These four diamond points seem to win plenty of supporters, in the Republican Convention and post convention polls for Trump. But to win a game you need five diamonds; the fifth Diamond has to be clearly bid after the Republican convention has been concluded.
 
On the Democrat side, despite of Bernie Sanders’ courageous fight in the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton has sewn up the winning pouch. Bernie had drawn more support from young people with liberal appeal; thus Hillary has to figure out a way to court Bernie’s supporters and mindful not tilting too far left. It is for sure that Hillary’s opponent Trump will be coming from the right, after Republicans eventually rally behind him. At this point, Trump has created a momentum that is threatening Hillary’s ‘sure win status’ in the 2016 presidential race.  Trump is fully aware of Hillary’s playing the gender or woman card and her wooing the minority voters with every special interest – an inclusive party claim. Trump on the other hand is riding on the momentum of defying the current and past administration’s blunders of which Hillary is a contributor and a not-trustworthy figure.     
 
However, ‘Four Diamonds’ does not make a game in ‘bridge’; the U.S. 2016 presidential election is like building a bridge to a better future, whether it is for the U.S. to win again or for the U.S. to be great again. For Trump to win the general election beating Hillary, he must bid and play a ‘Five Diamonds’ game. The world has changed significantly in the past three decades since the Reagan era. The Cold War ended with the Soviet Union collapsed, but Russia is going through a rejuvenation fully taking advantage of the mess in the Middle East caused by the U.S. intervention. China has risen not only economically but diplomatically on the world stage. Other than Japan and the U.S., the developed countries, like U.K. Germany, France …, all adopted a realist foreign policy embracing China’s rise and her vision in global economic development – One Belt and One Road (OBOR). Why should the U.S. stick with an outdated or legacy China policy? In addition, Russia seems to be taking side with China already.
 
So it is clear that the ‘Fifth Diamond’, Trump needs, is a new and fair US-China relationship where the U.S. will work with China and cultivate a friendly relation rather than target China and stimulate an arms race like Barack-Hillary have done. Trump is correct to say that we need to bring jobs back to the U.S. and get our finance in order. This objective can be accomplished far easier by collaborating with China who is tuning her economy to a consumption driven economy. China needs hi-tech consumer goods not hi-tech weapons, why agitate China to invest in military development rather than assist China to elevate the standard of living of her billion people. In today’s global environment with nations mutually and closely interdependent, a nation is not a great nation because she has military might and uses it at will. A nation is respected only when she is genuinely able to help other developing countries to make economic gains. A smart helper can make great economic gain as well, recalling the post WW II U.S. Marshall Plan helping the Europe.         
 
Defining and constructing a collaborative and productive US-China relation is the Fifth Diamond 
that Trump would need to make a bridge game. In a ‘bridge game’, communication is the key element, the object of the bridge game is to bid and make a game if possible. A bridge game is not like the poker game, in which the winner takes all. In a bridge game, everyone tries to play the best making the game enjoyable by all. Three No Trump is a game and Five Diamonds is also a game but one must accept what cards are dealt to one’s hand and try to play the best game. Looking at the cards that are dealt to the parties of Republicans and Democrats, I venture to say that the Republicans have a chance to win the 2016 presidential election if Trump bids and plays a ‘Five Diamond’ game and ignore Hillary’s preemptive bid such as calling Putin as Trump’s partner or Trump does not have enough ‘experience’ points to make a game.              
0 Comments

Foreign Policy Thoughts Inspired by The Arbitral Tribunal on The South China Sea Case

8/13/2016

2 Comments

 
Paul Tung
Lately there has been a lot of media coverage on the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines against China for disputes in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. In addition, the military maneuvers by the U.S. and China in that area have been intensified. Threats and counter threats were traded between these two great powers. The U.S. dispatched two aircraft carrier groups consisting of ten U.S. naval ships to the area prior to July 12, 2016, the date of the announcement of the final award by the Arbitral Tribunal. China conducted a series of military exercises in the northwestern part of the South China Sea between July 5th and July 11th right before the ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal was made. Incidents could result from any small mistakes in actions or miscalculations by either side of these military maneuvers. Fortunately these things did not happen. As the US is not one of the claimants in the dispute and had declined to ratify UNCLOS (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), one can’t help but wonder why the Obama administration is so eager to get involved in the South China Sea, more so than the claiming party, in this case, the Philippines? Do we have other unspoken motives?
These questions led me to look into the bigger issues concerning our foreign policy. Before we delve into that, let's first examine the Arbitral Tribunal matter in some details.
Who Conducted the Arbitration?
The case as reported by the media goes like this:
The Philippines submitted its case to an "international court" about the disputed islands against China in the South China Sea in 2013. This "court" went through the process of selecting judges, etc., and finally disclosed its final award on July 12, 2016. The contents of the award are completely in favor of the Philippines.
In order to understand the case, at least in a cursory manner, one must know what this "international court" is. Is this so-called international court the UN International Court of Justice, or at least part of or directly related to it, as many in the media led us to believe?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a division of the United Nations that settles the legal disputes submitted by the UN member nations. It is located in the Peace Palace in The Hague. In the same building there is also another organization called Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relationship among these two organizations and the Arbitral Tribunal which handled the South China Sea Arbitration case is described unambiguously on the official website of ICJ:
(http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php)
"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (www.pca-cpa.org). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website."
The secretarial assistance from PCA mentioned in the statement above is described on the PCA website:
“In July 2013, the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration appointed the PCA to serve as Registry for the proceedings. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that the PCA shall ‘maintain an archive of the arbitral proceedings and provide appropriate registry services as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal.’ Such services include assisting with the identification and appointment of experts; publishing information about the arbitration and issuing press releases; organizing the hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague; and the financial management of the case, which involves holding a deposit for expenses in the arbitration, such as to pay arbitrator fees, experts, technical support, court reporters etc. The Registry also serves as the channel of communications amongst the Parties and the Tribunal and observer States.”
(https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf)
From these two statements, we can draw the following conclusions:

1) The ruling did not come from the ICJ but from the Arbitral Tribunal with the secretarial assistance from PCA. Neither organization is associated with the ICJ and they are not part of UN institutions.
2) PCA is not a court but an administrative organization for arbitral tribunals.
 
How Was the Arbitral Tribunal Formed and Who Foot the Bill?
When the Philippines submitted the original dispute for arbitration in 2013, five arbitrators were chosen for the Arbitral Tribunal. Out of the five, one was recommended by the Philippines and the other four was chosen by the then president of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), Hamburg, Germany, Judge Shunji Yanai of Japan. The fairness of the panel has been called into question as none of the five judges – one African and four Europeans, have in-depth knowledge of the South China Sea and Judge Yanai was once Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s advisor on his plan to amend the Japanese Peace Constitution to allow Japan to embark on military actions overseas.
The expenses of the arbitration including the arbitrators’ remuneration as reported by the Wall Street Journal were covered completely by the Philippines, as China refused to participate in the proceeding.
(http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2016/07/13/beijing-lashes-out-at-south-china-sea-tribunal-and-the-people-on-it/)
The Western Media and the US Role
When the US and some other Western media outlets such as CNN, New York Times, BBC News and The National Interest reported the news relating to this case, they always phrased their reports in such a way to mislead the readers to think that the judgment or award was from the ICJ in The Hague, or PCA in The Hague. The fact is they were from this ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal, not from ICJ or PCA. What are the objectives of these misleading reports? It looks that they all try to make the "ruling" more authoritative than it actual is.
The misleading news reporting on the arbitration and the tremendous efforts on the part of US taking side with the Philippines against China led me to wonder what is the real story behind this case?  Is it merely for a few small islands in the South China Sea or are there bigger issues involved?
In my view, all these maneuvers stem from the Obama administration’s "pivot to Asia" and the "rebalancing Asia" strategy. Many people argue for that policy emphasizing the importance of the US presence in the South China Sea to maintain "freedom of navigation" and to prevent the dominance of China in that region. But as a concerned U.S. citizen, I want to ask our government this question, at what price are we willing to pay for sending our troops to that part of the world (the cost of operating the two carrier groups in South China Sea is roughly $10 million per day). Why our foreign policy is always geared towards maintaining the US military dominance all over the world? Instead of going into wars with other nations, why can’t we cooperate with them to share the limited world resources and build a more peaceful world? I fear the huge presence of the US military in the South China Sea might create disasters in Asia similar to what happened in the Middle East and Central Asia since 9/11. What do we ordinary Americans, asides from the military-industrial complex, have to gain from such adventures? Do we want to create more terrorists coming to this country in the coming years? The money we save from not provoking unnecessary wars can be put to better use back home, such as modernizing our outdated and dilapidating infrastructures.
The time has come for us to redirect our foreign policy towards true multilateralism where we work with other nations without resort to coercion and dominance. This is the only way we can regain the moral high ground in the eyes of the people in the world.
​
佟秉宇,Paul Tung, 1964台大機械系畢業,1971年 UCLA 材料工程博士,1986赴大陸創業,2013年退休回美,現任中美論壇社務委員。
 
 
2 Comments
<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    Chinese Society
    International Politics
    Reprints
    Taiwan Politics



    An advertisement
    will go here.




    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly