A ten-minute phone call between U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump and President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan has generated much hullaballoo. Or to be more precise, the histrionic reporting in its aftermath by the American media certainly seems to have done so.
A glance at the comical transcripts of Trump’s earlier conversation with the Pakistani prime minister reveals how seriously to weigh these phone sessions. (Hint: not very). But let’s allow that this could be a deliberate act on the part of the incoming leader, with some measure of symbolic value.
The vituperative comments now issuing from the ranks of political journalists and foreign affairs aficionados illustrate a disappointing and problematic mindset.
First, we should never run around shrieking about China’s “hurt feelings.” Self-styled politicos sometimes seem to care far more about perceived slights than Beijing itself does. Applying knee-jerk censorship on behalf of China—without even waiting for a request—legitimates the Communist regime’s claims in advance, meaning they have already won.
Furthermore, in taking this call—from Taiwan’s first democratically elected female president, one might add—Trump did not violate any deep or profound canons of decency. He simply acknowledged the leader of a society that has long had friendly ties to the United States. Does this merit so much apocalyptic flak?
The American government’s diplomatic protocols vis-à-vis the Taiwanese government, where the “president, national security adviser, secretary of state, secretary of defense” avoid directly contacting their counterparts across the Pacific, are not immutable laws of the universe. They are a set of practices unilaterally decided upon by the Carter Administration in 1979 when, unbeknownst to the U.S. Congress or our nation’s longtime ally in Asia, the White House decided to drop official recognition of Taipei in favor of Beijing. Procedures for this controversial switch were then cobbled together by people—human beings making improvisational choices.
These choices have engendered critique in ensuing decades. This year alone, commentators recommended officially upgrading ties in a range of ways (see: John Bolton, current Trump advisor) and substantially restructuring relations with Taiwan to thaw what Dan Blumenthal has characterized as a “frozen” “Cold War legacy.”
When running for president against Jimmy Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan was a strong proponent of improving ties between Washington D.C. and Taipei. He opposed the humiliations and “petty practices” Carter had visited upon Taiwan’s diplomats and citizens.
The future Oval Office holder recognized that the Taiwan Relations Act, passed by a shocked Congress in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner, was the dominant framework defining and legally mandating ties—and under the TRA, substantive relations could certainly flourish.
Winston Lord, an eminent China hand who was instrumental in opening contacts between the U.S. and China in the early 1970s, and later the U.S. ambassador, commented on Trump’s phone call, “I have no problem with his talking to Madame Tsai; Taiwan is a good friend and although our relations are unofficial, I think it’s important to maintain close bonds with Taiwan.”
The former head of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), for all intents and purposes the ambassador to Taiwan at the de facto embassy, William Stanton, recently encouraged the incoming administration to “show greater openness and flexibility in allowing Taiwan’s representatives to meet with U.S. officials on a more regular basis and at a higher level.” He decried how “Washington lawyers created most of the self-imposed restrictions on official Taiwan travel and contact in an overly zealous effort to show that we had indeed broken diplomatic relations.”
Conditions are different today than when Carter tried to respond to the threat of the Soviet Union by currying favor with Beijing. Instead of jumping reflexively to uphold a dated set of etiquette rules and criticize this event, why not consider Taiwan issues on their merits today? Indeed, various protocol changes have been rolled out over the years, not necessarily with much fanfare. In 2002, for example, a new law allowed “government officials and active duty military personnel to be assigned to AIT … without having to retire first” or go through what Stanton calls, “the charade of a temporary resignation.” Browser updates should not trigger meltdown warnings. Protocol is, after all, but a small part of the much larger question of cross-Strait strategy.
It’s interesting to note that when President Obama genuinely altered a long-standing American policy on Cuba by restoring relations that had been severed since 1961, he was lauded as a groundbreaking leader. The artificial furor over Trump’s call with Tsai seems less about the substance or foreign policy implications, and more about taking opportunistic political potshots at Trump, over an issue the media had reported upon very little, until now.
Contrary to Trump’s horrifying suggestion that our NATO allies should cough up more protection money to guarantee America’s commitment, the president-elect is—for once—actually sticking up for our democratic allies. Is that something to bemoan?
Estonia is probably cheering: instead of selling out a small, democratic nation to its overbearing authoritarian neighbor, the incorrigible Tweeter-in-Chief has done the polite and decent thing, for a change. His transition team arranged a friendly call where Trump accepted (and extended) congratulations, and exchanged opinions with a world leader whose cooperation is vital to American interests. Since then, the president-elect has kept a cool head and refused to bow to the hysteria.
Of course, Trump’s mercurial nature means he could easily flip-flop, and Taiwan might find itself cut loose in the future. But when the political class slavishly jumps to the defense of a status quo that China that has already moved past, it reveals a severe lack of imagination. Instead of pouncing on this issue to flog Trump for his perceived ignorance, can we not take some satisfaction that decency prevailed in this outcome?
Virtually none of the reporters who are piling on to score political points previously covered the Taiwan issue, yet today they scold the Trump administration to demonstrate their own superiority on foreign matters. When this happens, the only people being hurt are the citizens of democracies who have been seeking assurance from their friends and attempting to peacefully grow their international space.
(Feature photo of Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)
- Non-Binary Taiwanese Drag King Stars In Netflix’s Midnight Asia - January 31, 2022
- Mulan (1998) is Still a Film ‘Worth Fighting For’ - September 19, 2020
- Election 2020: Highlights from the Legislative Races - January 17, 2020
I think something needs to be clarified. Madame Tsai is the elected president of Republic Of China (ROC), not Taiwan. ROC is the Chinese government in exile on Taiwan who still claims that it is the legitimate governing body of China. Taiwan’s legal status is still undetermined. ROC does not equal to Taiwan. There’s a lot of rhetoric trying to blur the facts to get people to think that ROC and PRC have legitimate claim on Taiwan.
The reason why Taiwan has no status in the international community is because it’s status has not been established since Japan’s surrender at the end of WWII. Japan did not relinquish the island to any particular party. Chinese army, under the first general order issued by general McArthur, was to occupy Taiwan as part of the Allied Forces. The Nationalist has been deceiving the people to this date that they came to Taiwan to “recover” their lost territory. President Truman has proclaimed this during his presidency as well that Taiwan does not belong to the Chinese. When the international community and the UN begin to recognize the Communist Party as the legitimate governing body of China in the 1970s, the Nationalist government became the Chinese government in exile on the island of Taiwan. Both the current government on Taiwan and China are trying to continue the lie and proclaim that Taiwan IS, and has always been, a part of China, thus seize the sovereignty of the island illegally. But the reality is that Taiwan’s status has not been officially determined, thus US, in some way, has the obligation to continue to protect it, thus the Taiwan Act. Another reason is that Taiwan has been of strategic importance to the US to keep the communists in check back in the 1950s, and even more now to create that first layer of defense against China (the layer is linked between Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines).
The ROC you are referring to doesn’t exist anymore. With democratization, the government has transitioned from an exile Chinese government into a government controlled by the 23 million people living in Taiwan. So Madame Tsai is the elected president of the new Taiwanese government, not the Chinese government in exile.
All the stuff you are talking about might be true de jure. But in reality, who cares about what’s on paper? Sure, the Nationalists stole Taiwan from its fate. But that’s all history. And what’s done is done. The reality is those Nationalists are now either gone or naturalized, and the government is now in the hands of all people living in Taiwan (which includes the sons and daughters of those people that fled from China). A state is sovereign if it’s territory is controlled and governed by its own people. By such a definition, Taiwan is a sovereign state, regardless of what name it has right now. It may be called ROC, it may be called Taiwan, but there is only one Taiwan and one Taiwanese people.
You are correct that ROC does not exist anymore. It ceased to exist the moment the UN recognized the government in Beijing is the sole representative of China in 1971. Since then, ROC has just been a fake shell trying to tell whoever believes them that they are the legitimate government of China. (Kind of like the fake knockoffs of New Balance Shoes popular in China right now.) But sorry sir, I have to respectfully disagree with your logic. Because all those activities you mentioned were still done under the framework of the ROC. The election was conducted under the constitution of the ROC, and the president had to swear to uphold the constitution of the ROC when she took the office. The “state” is still declared as ROC. Has that changed? Was there an official declaration to the world of Taiwan’s independence and that it is now called Republic of Taiwan? In order for a sovereign state to be established, these 4 fundamental requirements must be met (in International Law): sovereignty, independence, permanence, recognition, legal order. So far none of these has been achieved in Taiwan. So no, Taiwan is not officially a sovereign state. Taiwan is just a geographic name of an island, that is it.
There are several arguments out there with supporting evidence regarding the true status of Taiwan. But I am no expert on this topic. Some indicates that Taiwan is still part of Japan. Although Japan had surrendered the control of it, but it did not surrender the sovereignty (ownership) of it. Some indicates that US is still responsible for it. The commonality is that China has no claim whatsoever.
All DPP, the party that Madame Tsai leads, has done is to further support the lie that ROC = Taiwan. After all, it is a political party under the ROC constitution. All this, as well as the original story above, has achieved, was to mislead everyone that Taiwan “was part of China”, and that Taiwan is trying to “break away from China”. If she declares independence, it just means ROC has declared independence “from China” and now we have two Chinas. So of course the US and the international community will not allow it. And all it will do is to give China an excuse to crush Taiwan because they don’t want a “knock-off” China to exist. Taiwan cannot declare independence, it must declare the creation of a new nation. But then it gets murky from that point on. Because if the pro-Japan theory people are right, then how can the new nation be established on Japan’s sovereign territory?
“But I am no expert on this topic.” That you clearly are not.
Your personal opinion, based on a lack of understanding of politics and history, does not change that Taiwan, the Republic of China, has been operating as a strong democracy for generations.
The names clearly confuse you. “China” (in both Republic of China and People’s Republic of China) is a word that suggests lineage from the Middle Kingdom, dragons, all that historical jazz. Both governments wanted the name to indicate their claim on the mainland. The Taiwanese government and people gradually gave up on reclaiming the mainland and has since been focusing on manufacturing, high-tech industries, arts and culture, and advancements in indigenous and LGBT rights, to give a few examples. Meanwhile, China (PRC) is still a communist regime in which journalists and human rights activists are jailed and the State manipulates the news both its people and outsiders can access, and the wealth gap and inequality are worsening.
Taiwan can’t “declare” independence because China is large and freehanded with threats, which it doles out every time Taiwan distinguishes itself internationally (sporting events, film festivals, etc.), but that hardly changes how reality has been for decades.
“Madame Tsai is the elected president of Republic Of China (ROC), not Taiwan”
Taiwan is a name commonly known to the world. It shouldn’t take much to see that people usually refer to a country by common name, not the official name. For example, you would say “British minister”, but not “minister of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
As Adam pointed out, what really counts is that this is a gov elected and controlled by Taiwanese people. Trying to state that Tsai is not a President of Taiwan is not a wise move.
沒有這回事！根據美國國會通過的《台灣關係法》中瞭解的~[台灣]一詞僅僅代表台灣本島、澎湖列島等其餘環繞台灣本島之小島，並未包含金門與馬祖。
There were actually two comparatively measured and thoughtful articles published in the NYT today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/world/asia/trump-call-gauged-positively-but-cautiously-in-taiwan.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/05/us/politics/ap-us-trump-china.html
Sad that NYT led the way in sensationalizing the initial scoop but then leave the more nuanced responses out of the front page.
the troubling thing about the call is that we have no idea whether he took it with a full understanding of its ramifications or with no understanding. because there is no transparency and because Trump and his handlers have no regard for the truth, we do not even know whether Madame Tsai called Trump or whether he called her. authoritarianism abhors truth because with an understanding of the facts, the people can question power. this is our right in a democratic society.