Please stop implying the name "Chinese Taipei" is Taiwan's choice

Borrowed (ok, yanked) from Chen Yen-han's Twitter feed

So much has been said about the name "Chinese Taipei" that I hadn't been intending to blog about it at all, especially as I Do Not Watch The Olympics (in capital letters). But there's a particular strain of thought that's been bugging me this time around, and perhaps it's worth addressing. 

That is, the idea that "Chinese Taipei" exists because of a decision -- just about any decision on Taiwan's name or laws -- made and currently affirmed by the government of Taiwan, so Taiwan itself is to blame for it. Even worse, this carries the implication that the geographically nonsensical name was somehow Taiwan's choice. 

I'm choosing to leave aside all the other arguments here: that "Chinese Taipei" exists because Taiwan is part of China, which is so wrong it doesn't deserve anyone's attention, or that it's the unfortunate result of international political give-and take -- which is basically true, but dispiriting. There's also the argument that Taiwan not being independent is a matter of 'international law', which is simply not true. Under any international laws that apply (and not many, if any, do), Taiwan's status is either undetermined, or it's a country. The UN and various diplomatic recognition questions don't change that. 

Besides, if it were a matter of "international law", Hong Kong and Palestine would not be fielding teams, as Palestine also lacks a seat at the UN and is denied autonomy by Israel, with US backing. Hong Kong is a recognized part of China, unfortunately. If only countries could field teams, the refugee team wouldn't exist. Countries, territories, states battling for recognition and groups of people who aren't even from one country can all participate in the Olympics, and name changes simply aren't a matter of international law. 

That's not the point, though. The big problem here, the one that my brain won't release, are the implications that the name "Chinese Taipei" was somehow Taiwan's decision or Taiwan's fault. It is neither.

Let's be clear: if the people of Taiwan had any say at all in what their Olympic team was called, it would be Taiwan, period. Nobody in Taiwan says "Chinese Taipei", they refer to their teams as 'Taiwan'. In 18 years, I have seen exactly one (1) person wearing a piece of Chinese Taipei merchandise, and frankly, he was getting a lot of stink-eye for it. I've never seen a piece of Chinese Taipei merch on sale in Taiwan. Some do watch, and when Taiwan wins, they talk about how Taiwan won, not Chinese Taipei. 

"But the official name of the country is the Republic of China! If they want to be Team Taiwan, they should change the country's name!"

Sure, I want to see a Republic of Taiwan too. The sooner the better, and it would be preferable if it didn't involve a war. But this argument is disingenuous: the name of the country isn't "Chinese Taipei". What Taiwan is called at the Olympics is simply not related to the official name of Taiwan. If it were, they'd be "Team Republic of China". That sounds silly to me, but I suppose it would be accurate at some official level. It might be locally be accepted, with a few groans. 

What's scarier about this is the Catch-22 such commentators intentionally create for Taiwan. They insist that in order to be called Taiwan, the country's name has to change, but will be the first to blame Taiwan if war breaks out because the country changed its name. There's no way for Taiwan to 'win' in the scenario they set up, and I refuse to believe everyone who makes such comments is so brain-addled that they don't see this.

No country, no people, should have to risk a devastating war just to have their sovereignty affirmed, especially if they are already self-governing. Frankly, even if they aren't -- but that's a different, rather irrelevant debate for Taiwan.

Regardless, Taiwan doesn't have to change anything internally to ask the IOC to reconsider now that Taiwan has democratized and seen drastic changes in beliefs, desires and identity. (How drastic, we'll never know -- it's not like anyone was polling what Taiwanese people thought in 1970). Plenty of nations, groups and territories request changes. The IOC is free to grant them. There's nothing stopping them except China. 


"But Taiwan itself claims to be China, so they themselves don't want to just be Taiwan!" 

No, it doesn't. If the constitution could ever have been said to claim all of China, that was put to rest in the 1990s. I could talk at length about what the ROC constitution itself does and does not say, and what the amendments do and do not mean, but I've already done that here. 

All you really need to know is that the constitutional court declined to rule on constitutionally-specified borders of the Republic of China. In other words, they wouldn't take it up as a constitutional question because they consider it a fundamentally political one, with the constitution not clarifying either way. 

Thus, the constitution makes no specific claims about ROC borders, which means it fundamentally cannot be used to claim PRC territory. 

That's leaving aside the amendment specifying that the ROC only claims to govern 'the free area' -- which is Taiwan and its outlying islands. Not the PRC. 

There really is no law that specifies borders, at least not one that I can find. As for comments, almost every elected administration of Taiwan has upheld that Taiwan is Taiwan, and its name is the Republic of China. Several elected presidents, with really only one exception, have stated that the PRC and ROC are two different entities, and neither is subordinate to the other -- or that relations between them are at the state-to-state level. 

At the highest level of office, Taiwan simply does not claim to be all of China.


"But Taiwan had the chance to be Team Taiwan and turned it down!" 

This is technically true. Taiwan was offered the opportunity to compete as Team Taiwan at one point, and has competed under other names. I'm going to quote at length from Focus Taiwan here, as they tend to make their articles unavailable to the public after a time, and I think that's silly:

The PRC stayed away from the Olympics throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, enabling the ROC to compete under the names of "Formosa" in 1960, "Taiwan" in 1964 and 1968, and "Republic of China" in 1972.

During that era, the Kuomintang (KMT) leaders of the ROC wanted the national Olympic team to compete under the "Republic of China" name to get international backing for the ROC's legitimacy, according to the documentary. For the KMT, this was especially important after the United Nations recognized the PRC and expelled the ROC in 1971.

In 1976, when the ROC delegation was asked to join the Olympic Games under the name "Taiwan" instead of "Republic of China," it refused to change its name and withdrew from the games in Canada, which broke diplomatic relations with the ROC and established ties with the PRC in 1970. [Emphasis mine]

The IOC executive committee then passed the "Nagoya Resolution" in 1979, which both the PRC and the ROC governments ultimately agreed to follow.

The resolution recognized the PRC's Olympic Committee as the "Chinese Olympic Committee" and the ROC's Olympic Committee as the "Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee."

After missing again from the Moscow Olympics in 1980, Taiwan was allowed to compete starting from the 1984 Olympic Games under an agreement with the IOC in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1981.

The "Lausanne agreement" -- viewed by some as a compromise by Taiwan -- required Taiwan's team to compete under the name "Chinese Taipei," use a non-political flag, and not play the ROC national anthem.

CNN puts it more succinctly, pointing out that this agreement wasn't exactly embraced by Taiwan, but was rather a negotiation mostly between the PRC, IOC and host nations that Taiwan signed: 

In 1976 and 1980 Taiwan boycotted the Olympic Games, after the host nations refused to allow its team to compete under the ROC moniker.

When Taiwan returned to the 1984 Olympics it was under the name “Chinese Taipei” following the 1979 agreement between the IOC and China that allowed the island to compete, but not use its own name, flag or anthem.

 

That doesn't sound like agency to me, but rather defeated acceptance. Of course the KMT dictatorship wouldn't have accepted "Taiwan" in 1981, but "Chinese Taipei" wasn't exactly Taiwan's idea either. The KMT wanted "Republic of China", which is quite a different thing. The name was never popular in Taiwan, not the leaders and not the people. 

First of all, this happened under the old Chiang dictatorship. Chiang Kai-shek made these decisions, not Taiwan. He not only did not listen to the will of the Taiwanese people, one might argue he would have been actively opposed to it, if he'd cared what the will of the people was. (He didn't.) What "Taiwan" wanted was never a consideration then.  Chiang screwed this up for Taiwan, not Taiwan. He screwed a lot of things up for Taiwan, and most of the "development" of the nation attributed to him and his son was the KMT fixing their earlier muck-ups of Taiwan's infrastructure, economy and industry.

What this tells me isn't that "Taiwan" chose Chinese Taipei, because it didn't. It tells me that at one point, the IOC was open to Taiwan being called Taiwan, or Formosa, or Republic of China. That changed, and the only reason for the change was political pressure from China. It had nothing to do with Taiwan's actions. 

Because if Taiwan were in the same position today, you could wager real money on Taiwan choosing 'Taiwan'. 

"But they held a referendum and rejected the name Taiwan for the Olympics!" 

There was a referendum, true, and it did fail. However, that referendum was subject to massive disinformation attacks, leading many to believe that choosing to ask the IOC to change the name "Chinese Taipei" would result in Taiwan being 'forced to forfeit' the Olympics, which would be bad for Taiwan's hardworking athletes. To be fair, according to the link above (which I'm not sure I entirely trust), the IOC itself implied this. 

In truth, only a minority of voters actually cast a vote in that referendum. Had it passed, the Taiwanese government certainly would not have wanted the bad press of forfeiting Taiwan's participation in the Olympics under any name. The likely outcome wouldn't have been Taiwan insisting on "Taiwan or nothing", but rather asking once again to participate as Taiwan...and being rejected. In CNN's words: 

A referendum is unlikely to unravel that binding commitment, known as the Nagoya Resolution, which Taiwan signed in 1981.

In a statement to CNN on Thursday, the IOC said that the 1979 agreement “remains unchanged and fully applicable.”

You can call the referendum performative, you can call it meaningless. Perhaps it was. But it most likely wasn't a threat to Taiwan's participation.

We can also be quite sure that the results of the referendum aren't actually what Taiwanese want, if they could choose without threat of war or forfeiture of Olympic participation. There's a poll showing it: 

"The poll showed that 80.5 percent of respondents agreed that the nation should participate as “Taiwan” at events organized by world bodies, while 12 percent disagreed...

When asked what name the nation should use at global events, 51.2 percent of respondents said “Taiwan,” while 33 percent said the “Republic of China,” 9.7 percent said “Chinese Taipei” (中華台北), 0.6 percent said “Zhongguo Taibei” (中國台北), and 2 percent said “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu,” while 0.1 percent said other names, 2.9 percent said they did not know or had no opinion, and 0.5 percent refused to answer."

That's a solid majority. I think we know where Taiwan actually stands.

* * * 

None of this has made me change my mind on watching the Olympics. I Did Not Watch It, I Do Not Watch It, I Will Not Watch It. However, whether you want to support Taiwan (as Chinese Taipei) and accept the vagaries of international politics and Chinese threats, or just call it Taiwan, please don't blame Taiwan for the existence of the name. It's not fair, and it's not true. 

Chinese extraterritorial laws prove there can be no peace under "one China"

Beijing has adopted a new set of 'guidelines' that allow the Chinese government to try and convict Taiwan independence advocates in absentia, according to Xinhua. 

I advise you to read the entire thing -- the English translation is entirely comprehensible, and I relied on it as I do not read Simplified characters -- but it's even more insane than it seems on the surface. And frankly, that's saying a lot. 

Commentary so far has zeroed in on the inclusion of the death penalty for some "separatists", although the part about "deprivation of political rights" gave me a chuckle, because it's not like the People's Republic allows its citizens to access any true political rights: 

Those who cause particularly serious harm to the state and the people and whose circumstances are particularly heinous may be sentenced to death. Active participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years. Other participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, controlled release, or deprivation of political rights.

 

The range of "crimes" that can incur anything from a prison sentence to death are extremely vague: 

The guidelines also detailed what is considered crimes worthy of punishment, including promoting Taiwan’s de jure independence, advocating the nation’s entry into international organizations whose memberships are limited to sovereign states, engaging in official exchanges and military contacts abroad, and conspiring to create “two Chinas,” or “one China, one Taiwan,” in the international community.

They also include taking advantage of one’s authority in education, culture, history and the media to “distort or falsify facts about Taiwan’s historical links to China,” and “suppressing” parties, groups or individuals that promote peaceful cross-strait relations and “reunification” with China, as well as “other acts that seek to separate Taiwan from China.”

 

This is obviously off the rails, so much so that I barely even need to write about it. But what makes it even crazier, at least to me, is the assumption that if tried in absentia, defendants would actually believe it possible enough to get a fair trial in China that they'd send a defense team or appeal the verdict: 

In cases where the People's Court tries in absentia the crimes of "Taiwan independence" diehards who split the country or incited secession, the defendant has the right to entrust or have a close relative entrust one or two defense lawyers on his behalf. If the entrustment is made abroad, the authorization shall be notarized and authenticated in accordance with relevant regulations...

When the people's court tries in absentia a case of a "Taiwan independence" diehard splitting the country or inciting secession, it shall deliver the verdict to the defendant, his or her immediate family members, and the defense counsel. If the defendant or his or her immediate family members are dissatisfied with the verdict, they have the right to appeal to the people's court at the next higher level. The defense counsel may appeal with the consent of the defendant or his or her immediate family members.

 

I didn't know that the CCP was considering a career in stand-up comedy, but anyway, what does this actually mean? 

First, it attempts to silence Taiwan activists or those who'd be inclined to agree with them, mostly in Taiwan, but perhaps beyond it as well. It's meant to scare two types of people: pro-independence Taiwanese, and public figures anywhere in the world who might have reason to go to China in the future. For those in Taiwan, the PRC is essentially saying "we know we can't do anything to you now, but annexation is inevitable, and once that happens you're toast -- even if your activism ceases the moment we take control." 

In fact, it could be taken further than that: they're not just enacting Hong Kong-style repression in advance. They're making it easier to draw up a list of names now, so that if (when?) they do invade, they'll be able to snatch them that much more quickly. It's easier to keep people from escaping if you know who you want to punish in advance. 

Just as a little side note, there's a history of this in my own family. My great-grandfather was an Armenian fedayi, a fighter in the Turkish-Armenian war of 1920. Apparently he was quite the sniper. He moved to Athens and married soon after, but left on the eve of WWII. It wasn't just a general sense of danger: apparently the Nazis looked into things like, oh, say, whether you had a history of armed resistance. My great-grandfather did. The whole family fled.

That's the point I want to really drive home: every once in awhile some wrongo dongo gets it in their head that there can be peace if we just give China what it wants. It's better than a war, right?

But this is not possible. China's "peace" means hunting down and murdering activists, including friends of mine. For supporters who perhaps don't take an active role, it can mean worry for the rest of your life that something you said in erstwhile democratic Taiwan might come back to haunt you, costing you your job, your freedom or your life. 

I've heard people say it's not such a big deal to lose basic freedoms, that it's better than perishing under bombs and guns. Now imagine you surrender those freedoms to escape the guns, only to find your friend shot because he said something five years ago that your new masters don't like. Imagine they start asking you questions, and under duress you admit you attended a few protests, maybe voted for the DPP. Maybe you get shot too. 

Let's say you want to leave, but you can't, because you're associated with people whose names were on a list before the first PLA soldier's boots touched Taiwanese soil. They can take everything from you, including your life. 

That's how it will be, and it's not peace. There can never be peace under "one China". I can say right now that if China takes Taiwan, I have friends who will be murdered under this law. That is simply not peace. 

I could have said all of this a year ago, two years ago -- it's always been true. It's just that now they've made it more official. 

In theory, this could include me. I don't think I'm important enough to be noticed, but the danger is not zero. 

This also effectively bars anyone who's spoken for Taiwan from ever going to China, even if they don't intend to engage in any pro-Taiwan speech while there. You'd think it'd be easy to avoid going to China, and certainly the most prominent activists are banned. But Taiwanese companies do send employees to China on business. Now it's not safe to go, even if your work requires it, if you've made so much as a passing comment online, from Taiwan or anywhere else where access to freedom of speech is protected. 

This isn't a new notion for China, which convicted and imprisoned Lee Ming-che for five years, over his actions in Taiwan, where everything he wrote was fully legal.

In fact, the least scary thing about this is that the Chinese government has been detaining and kidnapping people, putting them through kangaroo courts if they're lucky, without a set of regulations to make it official. This is just paperwork; it's always been the case in practice. Beijing has likely already been keeping a list of people who'll be up against the wall if their annexation bid succeeds; this would just make more efficient. Killing sprees run so much more smoothly if the victims have already been convicted in absentia! 

As these regulations apply to anyone, not only Chinese nationals and Taiwanese whom Beijing insists are Chinese, they potentially affect any journalist, writer, academic, artist or public figure from anywhere in the world. As the Taipei Times source noted: 

Noting that US President Joe Biden has said he does not rule out using military force to defend Taiwan if China unilaterally tries to change the “status quo” across the Strait, they asked: “Does the CCP dare punish him?”

 

We could get more ridiculous with this: could Katy Perry be put on trial in absentia? Enes Kanter? Jensen Huang? John Oliver? Any foreign journalist who has simply reported that Taiwan is self-governed and polls show it wishes to stay that way? Researchers at Acasdemia Sinica who consistently publish polls showing Taiwanese don't consider themselves Chinese? 

How many pro-Taiwan people will look at their business travel needs and decide it's better to stay silent? Perhaps not all, but possibly some. How many of those fence-sitters who say they do believe that Taiwan isn't China but "want peace" or think China taking over is "inevitable" are going to decide it's better to just be quiet? If it's so "inevitable", they're toast, right?

Finally and perhaps most obviously, it silences anyone in China who thinks Taiwan deserves recognition of its current sovereignty, or at least attempts to. The regulations don't differentiate by citizenship, so this could be anyone -- Chinese citizens who were perhaps willing to say that Taiwan doesn't necessarily need to be "reunified", Taiwanese living or working in China, and even foreign residents in China who use VPNs to access the real Internet. I doubt they'd bother going after most such people, though they might pick off one or two Taiwanese in China to set an example. 

If we're really going to dive into what this could mean, trial in absentia does imply a warrant, and will generally result in a verdict. Although it's unlikely, at least theoretically this could embolden China to start issuing warrants or hounding Taiwan activists just as they do Hong Kong exiles. It's not just the National Security Law "in advance", it could well be attempting to promulgate the most chilling provisions immediately.

Outside of both China and Taiwan, attempts to arrest Tawian activists based on such a conviction in absentia would most likely but not necessarily be rebuffed, rendering a whole host of countries friendly to China now dangerous for anyone who's ever advocated for recognition of Taiwan's sovereignty. Although I haven't had much time to consider it, off the top of my head, I'd be worried about parts of Southeast Asia -- say, Cambodia, which has warm ties with the PRC, or Thailand, where Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong was detained and publisher Gui Minhai kidnapped.

If I were being super thirsty, I could ask you guys which countries you think Taiwan activists might get detained or kidnapped from. Where are you afraid to go now? Leave your top choice in the comments below, and don't forget to smash that subscribe button!

(Do I even have a subscribe button? Doubt it.)

Defining Ma Ying-jeou's "relevance"

He deserves an unflattering screenshot

I recently read with interest Donovan Smith's analysis of the continued relevance of former president and slightly burnt mannequin Ma Ying-jeou. Smith argued that despite being called "irrelevant" by the pan-green camp, that his power player position in the KMT meant he could not possibly be so. 

Donovan makes a good point. When it comes to shaping KMT policy and which puppet or inveterate Very Good Boy he'll trot out as his skin mask at rallies and for elections, and whose prior image he'll eviscerate in order to turn him (they're always male) into his next puppet, Ma is frighteningly relevant. 

In fact, I'd argue one cannot discuss KMT policies and directions without at some point discussing Ma. Even when he's not got his talons into this or that KMT candidate, his vision for what the KMT -- and Taiwan as a whole -- should be still shape the policies, platforms, desires and wet dreams of hardcore deep blue supporters. While their numbers may be dwindling, they're still a political force and not dismissed so lightly. 

So yes, in that sense, Smith is right. Perhaps, though, we should consider what these commentators mean when they call Ma "irrelevant" -- because it depends somewhat on how you define the term. 

The thing is, one might interpret political relevance as requiring being at least somewhat in touch with the general (or at least popular) consensus. You're relevant if your own ideas and commentary reflect the national mood, however roughly. If what you say resonates with the public and perhaps most importantly, the voters. 

In this sense, Ma is indeed irrelevant. It would be easy to point to his Deutsche Welle interview just before the election. He laid down some real whoppers here. Leaving aside "Taiwan can never win a war with China" (debatable, but I'll give him that based on the power imbalance), Ma stated that we should "trust" Xi Jinping, a point so ridiculous that it was basically an own goal for the KMT. I don't think it lost them the election, but it didn't help. However, if we're talking about Ma's relevance, I found this bit more alarming (and mendacious): 

Unification is something that our constitution says [sic]. So it's actually acceptable to Taiwan. But it has to be done peacefully, and through a democratic process. If that can be done, the chances are people in Taiwan may be interested in accepting this.

He says that again later on -- "if it is peaceful and democratic, the people of Taiwan will probably accept this." It's not a slip.

The constitution doesn't actually say that -- if it ever did, the series of amendments adopted from1990s through 2005 extirpated it -- but whatever.  It's not even the ludicrous notion that unification could possibly be peaceful or democratic when the government Taiwan would be unifying with openly doesn't care about democratic norms, and their massive military preparations indicate they don't care much about peace, either. 

What renders him irrelevant is the second half of that quote: the idea that because the constitution says it and theoretically it could be voted for (which would mean no immediate war), that "chances are" Taiwanese people would be "interested in" such a path. 

Every major poll, whether we're talking status quo or Taiwanese vs. Chinese identity, and the past three presidential elections have shown that the people of Taiwan are not interested in peaceful unification. Whether or not it's peaceful is not the point; they don't want unification period. They want to continue to govern themselves under the sovereignty Taiwan has as a result of the so-called 'status quo'. That is, a form of independence  (depending on how you define 'independence' -- my definition includes Taiwan's current state and so does President Tsai's). 

For such a thing to be "democratic", Taiwanese people would have to vote for it in a state of non-coercion and without political interference from China. Ma seems to think they might, if dialogue continues. The polls, however, say otherwise. If unification is deeply unpopular, and most Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese, chances are that won't change. 

It wouldn't avoid a war, by the way. In the highly unlikely event that Taiwan chooses this path, once they see that they've quite literally used their democracy to vote away said democracy, and brought all sorts of oppression upon themselves the second they 'democratically' diverge from Beijing's plans for Taiwan, all hell will break loose. It will make Hong Kong look like a children's birthday party. There will be a war of some sort, and there will be violence and slaughter.

There is no such thing as peaceful unification with the PRC, because even if Taiwan 'agreed' to it (which they wouldn't, because most people are not that stupid), the mass death starts when they realize what they've lost and begin to resist. 

To even imply that democratic and peaceful unification is possible, and that Taiwanese would be interested in it -- or that they'd be so gullible as to believe it were possible -- is such an extragalactically out-there thing to say with a straight face that I simply cannot reconcile it with any notion of "relevance". Ma's finger isn't even on his own pulse, if he has one, let alone the pulse of the nation. 

He doesn't stop the Chundertown Express at any point during this interview, by the way. When it's pointed out to him that Taiwanese don't identify as Chinese, especially among the youth, and reject unification and the 1992 Consensus, he says those young people need to "understand" what cross-strait relations and the 92 Consensus mean "to them" -- one China, respective interpretations. He takes it for granted that this interpretation (which China has never agreed with, they've never accepted the 'respective interpretations' aspect, so it's not a consensus at all) would be popular and accepted among Taiwanese. 

But it wouldn't, because to do so, they'd have to fundamentally believe they are Chinese, which they do not. (Ma does not engage with the poll results showing most Taiwanese do not identify as Chinese; most likely he believes that forcing pro-China changes to the education system will sufficiently brainwash that notion out of their minds). 

His off-the-rails commentary (or lack thereof) on public opinion and what Taiwanese "will probably accept" is so far removed from what Taiwanese seem to actually be thinking that I simply cannot call it "relevant". 

When the presidential candidate you taxidermied into your own little puppet boy publicly distances himself from your words, you might still be a political player but when it comes to public opinion and the path Taiwan is on, again, you're not exactly relevant. 

On that note, Ma only remains relevant within the KMT because their stance on China has not evolved to be more palatable in Taiwan. You might argue that they're hanging onto him because they have nothing better -- he's the last KMT candidate to win a presidential election. I'd argue the opposite: the KMT's platform is stuck in the dark ages because Ma has his talons in it; he won't let it evolve or modernize. 

I suppose that's a form of relevance, but not in the way most people likely mean.

To be truly relevant, you do indeed need to have some basic understanding of current public opinion, why it is what it is, and how to present your ideas in such a way that they might at least be considered in that light. Ma is constitutionally incapable of this -- pun intended.

It's not surprising, of course. This dude is deeply in love with Chinese-style authoritarianism and seems to wish more than anything that the KMT itself had the ability to be just as authoritarian. You know, like in the bad old days when they could just drag anyone who disagreed out back and shoot them.  

Looking at it another way, consider commentary about Ma's irrelevance to be a backlash against the way he acts every time he goes to China, and much of the resulting media coverage. He certainly traipsed around that country like he was some sort of ambassador on an official dialogue and peace mission. Whatever part of his brain had a stroke leaving him unable to empathize with Taiwanese people seems to have been filled with delusions of grandeur, that he can represent a side of the 'Republic of China' that China can talk to, because they agree they're part of some interpretation of China.

Even basic reporting on the visit implied (without saying outright) that his visit was somehow relevant to Taiwan's current government, even though Ma wasn't there in any official role. He was basically a glorified tourist-cum-useful-idiot. Other media make it sound like he is some sort of rational, peace-seeking emissary with the potential to "build ties" and -- again it is implied -- reduce tensions. That no serving Taiwan president has visited China is mentioned in such reports to imply that it matters to Taiwan if a former president does so. But I'm not sure it does, when his party doesn't even have the presidency. In terms of Taiwan's policy vis-à-vis China, he is irrelevant and his visit is irrelevant.

I even heard a radio segment in the Western media on his visit that I can't find again (so it's not linkable), but which astoundingly managed to get every basic fact right, while getting the story completely wrong. It implied again that he is some sort of peaceful messenger from Taiwan, creating hopeful dialogue and averting war unlike that dastardly Lai Ching-te whom Beijing dislikes for unspecified reasons. 

No discussion of how Ma's party had just lost the election in a historic third term for the DPP, possibly helped along a bit by that DW interview. No discussion of why Beijing dismisses Lai, or who exactly is refusing official dialogue (hint: it's not Lai). No mention of how unpopular Ma's opinions are in Taiwan, and how profoundly he misunderstands and outright ignores public opinion. 

Listeners abroad who don't follow these issues might take that hopeful note to heart -- oh look, a former Taiwan president is looking for dialogue with China, that can only mean a reduction in tensions! They'll completely miss the context that he's not speaking for the government, his trips are not affecting current policy, it's not even Taiwan who doesn't want dialogue but rather China gumming up the process, and his views do not enjoy broad social support.

That is, the take-home impression might be that Ma Ying-jeou is more relevant than he actually is.

When that's what the rest of the world is reporting about the guy who left office as the most unpopular elected president in Taiwan's history, like he's a beacon of hope in ever-escalating tensions (which are implied to be created by the DPP when in fact they are entirely manufactured by China), then perhaps one does want to call him irrelevant in response, no?

Because he's not an emissary. He has no official role. He's not in China to build ties between the two governments, because he no longer works for the Taiwanese government. He's not "building cultural and social ties" because his own views are completely out of tune with Taiwanese society and culture. He's promoting himself and the KMT to their support base.

While he's not quite sunk to the level of "local resident surnamed Ma" or "Taipei area man", he doesn't enjoy the broad social respect that a former president might expect. According to one poll, less than 40% of voters approved of his last trip to China in 2023, and that one was ostensibly of a more personal nature. 

Of course, it really wasn't: he was attempting to set the groundwork for the KMT's China policy, giving the KMT's presidential candidate less room to offer their own interpretation of cross-strait affairs. That worked for awhile, with Hou Yu-ih seeming to capitulate to Ma on matters of policy.

As we saw in the DW interview, however, Ma eventually seemed to take it a step too far and ended up with Hou declining to sign on to the broader Ma vision for the rejuvenation of the great Chinese nation.

Ma himself seems to think his actions, and especially these trips to China, have an effect on cross-strait relations, but from what I can tell, they don't. He seems to believe he can convince Taiwanese voters of the fundamental correctness of his vision, and their Chineseness. It has not worked. He tried to Frankenstein an opposition candidate to the DPP, and failed.

So when we say he's "not relevant", we mean that his actions do not reflect a broad social consensus and don't actually change much in Taiwan. When his actions are reported on as though he actually were the highly-respected elder statesman he believes himself to be, it gives the wrong impression to readers who don't know the whole context. 

When Ma actually has a policy success as an elder statesman that enjoys the support of the electorate, maybe we can talk about his return to relevance. When he lays out a groundwork for cross-strait policy that the ruling party doesn't feel they have to distance himself from, that might matter. And it would be unfair to dismiss him as completely irrelevant. His lightly-melted spectre haunted Hou's campaign and continues to rattle his chains in the halls of KMT headquarters too much for that to be true.

But if you define 'relevant' as "taking actions which have a tangible impact on Taiwan's governance", or as "engaging in statesmanship which enjoys broad support", he's not exactly relevant, either. If you include "has some understanding of public opinion and incorporates it into his actions and statements", he's so deep in left field that he's left the stadium and is wandering alone in the woods. He doesn't even seem to understand that public opinion exists, let alone that he should consider it.

And if a rando in the woods babbles on and on about how Taiwanese will choose "peaceful unification" and no-one's there to agree with him, did he really say anything at all?

Teacups vs. Plate Tectonics

All of us two weeks ago, on the Buluowan Suspension Bridge, which probably no longer exists

Like just about everyone in Taiwan last week, my Wednesday morning started with a massive shake-up. I sat on the couch drinking my morning coffee with a hefty dollop of doomscrolling and thinking about an upcoming workday which, at 7:57am, was about one minute away from not being a workday at all. 

When the alert hit my phone, my half-caffeinated brain took about two seconds to register that it was not only telling me in English to a coming quake and the need to take cover, but also in Mandarin that it was "significant", with "strong" shaking. I don't know how common it is for alerts to state so clearly the expectation of a major seismic event, but it did give me about three seconds to dive under my dining table and hold on. 

I don't have a particularly interesting story to tell: in fact, the most notable thing about my big earthquake experience is how little I was affected. My clients asked to postpone that day as we were all pretty stunned, and a few cracks appeared in my walls. That's about it. I continued with my plans to go camping the next day, after the organizers of the group confirmed the safety of the site and the tricky road to get there.

Even my teacups survived, and they were adhered to their curio shelf with nothing more than tiny globs of Blue-Tack. This was a particular surprise: one of my thoughts as I crouched under that table afraid for my life had been oh man, those teacups are goners!

Not everyone was so lucky; though no one I know was injured, many others were, and for the rest of the day I watched pictures of my friends' trashed apartments roll across my feed.

And yet, I spent the rest of the day -- now suddenly free to let my mind wander -- in low-grade freakout mode. 

Of course I was worried for Hualien, but this went beyond concern for the welfare of a nearby city. It was something personal; it came from the core. 

These teacups survived the 2024 earthquake

While I crouched under the dining table, my husband (wisely) stayed right where he was in bed, seeing as the frame is too low for either of us to fit underneath it. It was indeed scary to be in two different rooms, able to communicate but not see or help one another. Both of our cats bolted to their favorite inaccessible hiding places; in a truly life-threatening emergency, I would not have been able to grab them. 

Was this the source of my slow-rolling panic attack? Was I spooked that I'd be separated from my core family in Taiwan if the roof literally or figuratively caved in?

That surely played a part, but my gut knew that wasn't the whole of it. 

In Taipei the quake felt like it could have been a real emergency, but in the end it wasn't one. Countless articles have already been written on the surprising resilience of Taiwan, when other countries hit by seismic disasters of similar magnitudes have been devastated. Turkey comes to mind: the Antakya earthquake killed many more. (This strikes a nerve with me as my ancestry weaves through Antakya. I'd been hoping to return).

Or perhaps it's not so surprising: Taiwan also impressed the world with its COVID response, and has built a successful, developed nation despite the world's lack of recognition and the unceasing threat from China.

A death toll that stands at 13 -- though I think it's likely to go up in coming days -- is indeed impressive: like Taiwan's COVID response, it shows that when the country goes through a humanitarian disaster, whether the 1999 earthquake or 2003 SARS epidemic, it learns from it and does better next time. 

Knowing this doesn't seem to have improved my mental state, however.

Perhaps my inability to calm down and face the day stemmed from a trip we'd taken two weeks previously. We took visiting family on a 環島, or 'round the island' journey by train and car -- starting in Hualien. 14 days before the earthquake, almost to the hour, we were in Taroko National Park, navigating the cliff overhangs on the Shakadang Trail. You know, the one where some hikers were killed. We walked on the suspension bridge that appears to no longer exist. We drove over the bit of Suhua Highway that collapsed. Our driver for the day dropped us off at Dongdaemun Night Market to kill time between our day at Taroko Gorge and our dinner reservations; she waited for us across the street from the Uranus Building. 

Was it that? Having been in the exact location of all of these calamities so recently that I hadn't even shared pictures with my in-laws yet? Realizing that I saw Taroko Gorge just two weeks prior to its indefinite closure?

That certainly had something to do with it. It is unnerving to look at a bit of landslid trail or collapsed infrastructure and realize you were just there. But no, that was an insufficient explanation and deep down, I knew it. After all, those who were actually there when the quake happened either didn't survive, or had it immeasurably worse.

Unable to comprehend my own reaction, I sat on my couch, drank tea and stared at my teacups. Almost all of them were Taiwan-made, either by local artisans or a Taiwanese company. Two have a floral pattern commonly associated with Hakka culture (although I'm not sure how accurate the connection is). A few are Japanese and one came from an import store in New York. They're all very delicate, but they've survived up there for longer than anyone could reasonably expect them to. Any number of earthquakes should have brought them crashing to the floor by now. 

I stared at them and dreamed up an alternative reality, or a possible future, where I sit on that same couch drinking that same kind of tea, hearing an alert pop up on my phone as air raid sirens start a horrifying crescendo. I conjured fictitious (for now) Chinese missiles landing nearby. They create more cracks in my walls. My husband is somewhere else; I can't reach him. The cats flee to their secret spots. The cement crumbles, the furniture shakes, and the first teacup is forced free from the sticky tack holding it in place. Then another, and another. 

In this other world, they all eventually tumble and shatter. There is nothing I can do about it. 

It's not quite the same as an earthquake. The missiles are man-made; they're not the result of a natural process. They're not entirely random, and they're not inevitable. Tectonic plates move because that's just what they do. For them to behave differently, Earth would have to be a fundamentally different planet. These missiles I imagined were decided by someone. Earth didn't decide to kill 13 people this past week; it moved because it moves, and 13 people died. But missiles don't just fall on a city; someone fires them. A leader orders them. They are part of a chain of events in which some people choose to kill others.

And yet it is sort of the same as an earthquake, too. In Taiwan, a Chinese attack, like an earthquake, is an ever-present danger. There is little I will be able to do if it happens except dive under my table and hang on. If my husband isn't with me there will be no way to change that.

There's also nothing I can do to stop it from happening in the first place. Sure, someone decides to make bombs fall, but in that moment, what will matter to my life is that, like the earth shaking, bombs are falling.

There's not much Taiwan can do about it either. Diplomacy doesn't work when the other side doesn't keep promises and won't even come to the table unless their counterpart renounces their sovereignty, as China is insisting Taiwan do. Dialogue doesn't work when China isn't interested in hearing Taiwan's utter lack of interest in unification. Assurances don't work when the only assurance China wants -- that unification is possible -- isn't one that Taiwan can sincerely or reasonably offer. 

China will attack Taiwan when it thinks it can win, and no amount of playing nice will change their calculus. Only making the odds of winning less favorable will stop it, and there's only so much Taiwan can do in that regard. 

Like an earthquake, you can prepare, and analyze, and improve the nation's resiliency. A Chinese invasion is not inevitable simply because China could choose not to invade, but sitting here in Taipei, does it matter? It doesn't feel like Taiwan can truly stop China, just as it can't stop an earthquake. If China is determined to start a war because Taiwan can't give it the only thing it wants, there isn't much Taiwan can do to avert it. As with earthquakes, it can only make itself and its public institutions much harder to topple. 

I didn't do anything wrong on Wednesday morning: I dropped, covered and held on when it seemed like it really mattered. Sure, I repeatedly shouted "fucksnacks!" through the whole thing, but that's an understandable reaction. When the shaking stopped, I forced myself to get up, check on my husband, locate my cats' hiding places, survey the apartment to make sure there was no obvious major damage, and start messaging people that we were okay. 

The fear and anxiety didn't subside, though, and I wasn't particularly proud of the fact that all I really wanted was to cower under that table for awhile longer. I didn't want to get up, dust off, check for damage and start communications; I wanted to curl up and hide. That desire amplified the anxiety. Then I started to feel anxious specifically about the anxiety, which made the original anxiety worse. That deterioration led to more anxiety, which accelerated the spiral, and so on.

That's really what drove it: I experienced an almost-emergency over which I had no control. This was as close a taste as I'm likely to get of what it would feel like if China attacked Taiwan without warning. And I did everything right, but I still had a panic attack, and then I had a panic attack about my initial panic attack.

My insistence that I'm going to stay and fight suddenly felt like a hollow gasconade. That I did everything right didn't feel like proof that I have steel nerves, because it was necessary to force myself to accomplish any of it. What if I'm a liability rather than a help because I can't get it together?

That helplessness is utterly terrifying, and it does not matter whether it's a severe earthquake in progress or bombs from some brutal genocidal regime that might kill you.

Like most people who live in Taiwan, I'm always aware of the threats faced by the country I call home. I don't usually let them get to me; a life lived in fear is not really a life. At some point you have to get up, dust off, and go to work. Pay your bills, see your friends, do your chores, do your job, drink your drinks, cook your food, take your trips, read your books, call your parents, feed your cats. 

The Commentariat sometimes fires up this weird narrative that Taiwanese people don't care enough about the threat from China, that they're complacent or ignorant, and thus unprepared. While Taiwan could probably be spending more time and effort on this, the notion that its citizens are blissfully unaware of the looming threat isn't just nonsense, it's a funhouse-mirror distortion of reality. 

People living in Taiwan are aware of the threat pretty much all the time, as they are for earthquakes. But it's not healthy to live in a constant state of heightened anxiety -- that leads to real mental health problems, and I would know. It's also not possible to maintain, and not helpful. 

Living with it for just a day affected my mental state all weekend. Imagine living it every day in a war zone. Some people are living it now, and someone, somewhere, has lived it every single day any one of us has been alive.

Now imagine that, but you're not even in a war zone. You're at the supermarket, or in a cubicle, or in class, hyper aware at all moments that your big bully neighbor could start raining death on everything you love. 

It's no way to live. 

Nobody expects people in an earthquake zone to live in constant fear; they know it pickles the brain. Yet they express surprise that Taiwanese people don't do so as a response to the threat from China. Why?

Taiwan has survived for longer than many thought it would, showing the world the benefits of learning from mistakes and having a plan, as well as taking practical steps so that when disaster strikes and the plan must be executed, it actually works -- Democratic norms, public institutions and civil society must all be robust and well-maintained. Budgets approved, regulations promulgated and double-checked.

These norms and institutions so often seem like abstractions, and the realpolitik crowd would like you to believe they are fragile, easily broken, no real defense against the inevitability of a subjugationist strongman. Yet at least in Taiwan, they appear to be both fragile and surprisingly resilient, at the same time. Teacups can survive an earthquake, if they're well-anchored. Porcelain can stand up to plate tectonics, and win.

I don't know if it's enough, but I suppose it has to be -- for everyone living here including myself.

The Great Game Was A Great Idea

The face of every analyst if China invades Taiwan

 By Thadtaniel McDorpington III

The world has changed. Over the past decade, we have witnessed a distinct shift toward a renewed competition between the great powers. The bipolar struggle between the U.S. and China is the new Great Game of the 21st century. In fact, when it comes to Taiwan, the only two countries which matter are the U.S. and China: Taiwan is merely the piece of land they are fighting over.

In my previous work, I noted that the best way to ensure peace between the U.S. and China was for the U.S. to appease China. Expanding on that notion, the best way forward for averting war in East Asia is to treat it the way colonizing powers treated Central Asia in the 19th century -- that is, the Great Game. As we can see from Central Asia today, nothing bad resulted from that. Thus, it is an excellent framework to use in 2024 when discussing Taiwan. 

As today's rivalry over Taiwan is exclusively a Great Powers issue, I am unaware of whether Taiwan has people living on it or not. It is a place on a map whose strategic position is of interest to the U.S. but close to China, which has created a flashpoint. They also produce semiconductor chips there, but it is unclear who produces them. The U.S. needs those chips, but China wants to control their production, and that is the biggest dispute driving the issue. 

Taiwan must belong to someone, but debate rages regarding who exactly that is. The U.S.? China? Some other power or group of people as yet to be identified? The world may never know. 

Thus, if we wish for peace in East Asia, the most obvious solution is to work with China. As they are surely sincere negotiation partners who are open to a variety of outcomes, not just the outcome they demand, we must provide them with assurances. Perhaps we might even convince them that Taiwan could someday choose to be oppressed by them -- wouldn't that be something! 

And you never know: some people like the taste of hard leather. We should simply encourage those elements who prefer boots to be spit-cleaned for an outcome that is...well, not war exactly. Backing people whose end goal is dictatorship has never gone wrong.

All that really matters, after all, is avoiding war. Other concepts, like human rights and self-determination, are, shall we say, flexible. Besides, Taiwan is not a Great Power and therefore not inhabited by any humans worth speaking of, so who would even benefit from those human rights?

The best way to avoid war, of course, is to reassure Beijing that the U.S. will not fight one. As with Britain and Russia playing a rather violent chess game across Asia, China only wants Taiwan to spite the U.S. If the U.S. backs down, surely China will back down on Taiwan! Even if they don't, is it really in the U.S.'s interest to fight a war over some rocks? 

The logic is perfect: if China faces no opposition, from the U.S. or globally, on Taiwan, and is in fact assured that nobody outside Taiwan wishes to fight a war over it, China will realize that the path to conquering Taiwan is too easy, and thus not take it. 

If they do try to take it, then Taiwan, which may be a place where real people live, should defend itself. If it can't defend itself, then China should be allowed to annex it. What happens after that is nobody's business, and if there is a uprising in Taiwan that China has to put down violently through a series of genocides, we can register our shock by insisting we had no idea any of that would happen and how unfortunate it is, as we do nothing.

That's how international law and basic ethics are meant to work, and thus form the foundation of the Great Game. In some cases we even fund the genocides so they happen faster, but I do not specifically recommend it in this instance. Rather, inveighing against China after the fact while taking no specific action is sufficient for us to continue to believe we are good people with reasonable foresight.

Another option is to give Beijing everything else it wants in the hopes that it will be distracted from Taiwan. Surely they will not use our good-faith negotiation and offers of commodities and chip access to take more time building an ever-stronger military that they will use to conquer Taiwan regardless of all of the gifts we bestow upon them. There's certainly no precedent for that, nor any precedent of a country trying to control one of its smaller neighbors by interfering in its self-governance, calling resistance to that interference "separatism" and "color revolution", threatening to invade said neighbor, and then doing so. As that has never ever happened before, it definitely won't happen agai---I mean it won't happen.

It simply makes sense: tensions are raised over Taiwan. As nobody could possibly know who raised them, the U.S. must to everything in its power to keep China happy. Just as it is a well-known fact that respecting rules set by an abuser will undoubtedly cause the abuse to stop, we should respect all of China's red lines until we can figure out where these tensions come from. 

If the U.S. gives China everything it asks for and reassure them that we do not want a war, the situation over Taiwan may remain tense. That is acceptable, as I do not personally know anyone whom it would affect. In fact, I do not believe it would affect anyone at all, as it would not be a problem for the U.S. specifically. This is the normal way of things, and in the Great Game, Taiwan, which may not actually be inhabited, must accept that it will exist forever in a tense situation in which its neighbor threatens a violent annexation, and its possible allies equivocate on their support. 

Dear International Journalism on Taiwan: I fixed all your bullshit headlines for you

I woke up this morning elated for Taiwan, and annoyed at the headlines dominating international news coverage. Editors around the world were clamoring over each other to choose the most asinine angle to introduce the results of the Taiwanese elections. 

If these editors festering behind news desks are to be believed, Taiwan is a recalcitrant teen -- a very naughty boy -- defying the will of stern parental figure China. Taiwanese don't care at all about the threat of looming war and are basically taking a "fuck you, Dad, I do what I want!" approach to international diplomacy. As Taiwan slams the door to its room and blasts goth rock while smoking out the window, all the neighbors tut tut because they're "concerned about that kid's future" -- seemingly not noticing that the parental figures are abusive and cruel. It's a lot harder to help get someone out of an abusive situation than it is to worry that they're provoking their abuser.


                                      


Obviously, this is stupid. China isn't Taiwan's parent, and has no say in what Taiwan does. At worst, you might consider Taiwan an adult that's gone low-contact with abusive stepparents and is fully capable of managing their own affairs.

In other words, if Taiwanese voters, who have front-row seats to the Beijing hissy fit and have the missiles pointed at them (dear editors: do you have missiles pointed at you?) understand that appeasing Beijing simply will not work, why can't these major news outlets see it?

Taiwanese voters showed that they, unlike most of the world, correctly gauge the threat posed by China, and understand that accepting the terms of a country that wants to subjugate them simply does not work. They, unlike these editors, consider their own election to be about their polity, their country and their future -- not one dictated by China. 

They understand that a temporary "peace" attained through telling Beijing what it wants to hear -- essentially, we accept the concept that Taiwan is part of China -- won't work. First of all, it's a lie, and Beijing probably surmises as much. Second, it won't be possible to keep up that charade for long. What do all of these "oh my god, it's so provocative" types think is going to happen when China starts pushing for meaningful steps to integration which the Taiwanese public does not want? 

Because whatever it is, it won't be peace. If Beijing doesn't realize that Taiwanese don't think they're Chinese now, they eventually will. And then what?

The only solution, therefore, is to run their country as they see fit and hold the line with China. There simply isn't another way.

Yes, it's a shame that the opposition is either incoherent (the TPP) or are run by filthy unificationists. I would love to see a healthy opposition to the DPP that wasn't a fully bought and paid-for subsidiary of the CPP, and who also had a cohesive ideology, vision and set of policy proposals. 

It would be fantastic if this were a wake-up call to the KMT that they might continue to dominate locally, but they will struggle to win national elections if they continue to push the narrative that Taiwan is China culturally, historically and/or politically (whether through ROC patriotism or bare-faced unificationism). 

I doubt it though. Their internal philosophy is still heavily dominated by Ma Ying-jeou, and that guy lives in another world. Someone needs to buy him a watercolor set and a nice cardigan. Sit him down in a rocking chair and be like "okay grandpa, yes I know, uh huh, Taiwan bad, okay so why don't you paint a nice picture about it, hmmm? There you go. No no, you sit and relax. Let me get you your pills." 

If the TPP could step up and be a true "beyond blue and green" or "beyond cross-strait tensions" opposition, well, I'd love to see what would happen there. But I doubt it, as long as they're a one-man party run by a misogynist third-rate manfluencer whose only coherent ideology is "ME!" 

Anyway, I'm just ranting now.

Truly, the international media has taken great strides in how it reports on Taiwan. With some fumbles, the Taiwan-based reporters are improving on the work of their predecessors who used to parachute in, write garbage and leave. I don't see "split in 1949" nonsense that often anymore, and I haven't spotted a "renegade province" in some time.

Some pieces are genuinely good, like this one in the Financial Times (as usual, ignore the headline). It's nice to read an article and have no notes.

I'm still disappointed in the majority of think-tank analysis, but I suspect it will always be thus. 

The editors who write these headlines, though? 

They didn't just fumble. They took a Lalique vase, filled it with moonshine, drank the moonshine, barfed the moonshine back up into the vase, then threw the vase against the wall so that the barf and shards spattered everywhere, including on them. Then they shat themselves for good measure. 

Anyway, their work is trash and I hope the good reporters who also get hit with flecks of their barf shards will tell them so. 

Or maybe the gods can give them hangnails for every shitty headline they write. Nothing worse than that, I'm not a monster. Won't kill them but maybe will help them re-think their poor life choices. 

Truly, this is a reverse vision board of terrible ways to lead an article about Taiwan.

 

Abusers lie: everything wrong with that horrid Foreign Affairs article

My two expressions while reading this tedious Foreign Affairs article

Note: this is far too long, and I know that already. I know I end up repeating myself. Frankly, you only need to read the first half or so to get the point, but I offer quotes from most of the article, until I too got too tired to continue. There's just so much to refute!

Stop wherever you like; I won't blame you. 

***

I want to respect Bonnie Glaser. You probably don't believe that, because I dunk on her more than I agree with her, but in fact it would be preferable for someone in a position as influential as hers to put out good ideas and thoughtful analysis. I want to admire women of her stature, as well, in a world (and a field) that is so painfully male-dominated. 

If anything, this is why I am so disappointed in what she actually has to say. She likely has access to all sorts of data and intelligence that most people do not. She has the ear of people whose decisions matter. This is her actual career; I'm just a blogger. I should really listen to her.

But I can't. I just can't. Almost everything she puts out makes me cringe so hard, I can barely write about it. For me, it's worse than with her co-authors on the Foreign Affairs piece that's stirring up so much commentary on Taiwan Twitter: I haven't followed the career of Thomas Christensen, and Jessica Chen-Weiss is already a known China sellout who doesn't have Taiwan's best interests in mind. Dunking on the latter is hardly worth it, because there is no dimensionality to her (bad) opinions and analysis. 

Glaser, on the other hand, claims and occasionally appears to actually care about Taiwan and isn't an active unificationist pretending to be unbiased. That makes it all the more tragic; she seems to really want to stand for something regarding Taiwan, while at the same time must fool herself into believing China is a rational actor that can be talked to and reassured rationally. This results in what can best be described as cognitive dissonance in her work. 

Enough with the vaguery -- why do I feel compelled to say all this now? Again, it's that awful Foreign Affairs article. Pretty much nobody I've seen liked it, and with good reason. To that end, let's break it down to better understand exactly where it goes wrong. I'm focusing on Glaser specifically because she's since taken to Twitter to defend the views expressed, insisting they were "taken out of context" by critics (they were not). 

The growing might of China’s military and its increasingly aggressive posture toward Taiwan have made deterrence in the Taiwan Strait a tougher challenge than ever before.

This is correct, but fundamentally the piece calls for doing exactly what Taiwan and the US have already been doing: working on improving defense while not, say, declaring the independence that everyone knows Taiwan already has.

Which is fine, but if China's military might is "growing" and Beijing is becoming "increasingly aggressive" toward Taiwan, doesn't that indicate that these measures are either insufficient or simply not working?

Washington can help Taiwan’s military stockpile and train with coastal defense and air defense weapons, field a robust civil defense force, and create strategic reserves of critical materials such as food and fuel to deter and, if necessary, defeat an invasion or blockade of the island. 

This and the rest of the paragraph are fine; indeed the US should continue to assist Taiwan in these regards, not only for Taiwan's security but its own interests. My only gripe is calling Taiwan an "island". It's multiple islands that together comprise a country. 

A threatened state has little incentive to avoid war if it fears the unacceptable consequences of not fighting. As the Nobel Prize–winning economist Thomas Schelling wrote years ago, “‘One more step and I shoot’ can be a deterrent threat only if accompanied by the implicit assurance, ‘And if you stop, I won’t.’”

Right, and this is the fundamental problem. To China, Taiwan not moving toward unification -- in fact, moving toward not wanting unification now or ever, which is already the consensus in the country -- is an "unacceptable consequence". China was never content with just the status quo; that's why they've always made Taiwan accepting that it is at least conceptually a part of China a prerequisite for any dialogue at all. 

This implies that there is a way to deal with China that does not reveal this very extant "unacceptable consequence", a way to convince China that there's still hope for achieving the only outcome Beijing deems acceptable (unification) without war. 

But there isn't, because Taiwan will never choose or accept peaceful unification, now or ever, and Beijing surely knows this. Glaser should, too. 

The quote she proffers ends: "And if you stop, I won't [shoot]".  But I have to ask -- stop what?

Was Taiwan about to declare formal independence? It doesn't seem so, as the KMT thinks Taiwan is China, the TPP is a laughingstock, and the DPP has made it clear they currently have no such plans. What exactly is Taiwan meant to stop doing in order to incentivize China to reduce its aggression?

From here it seems that no matter what Taiwan does, China gets ever more aggressive. And again, Glaser of all people should realize this. 

The three parties involved in the Taiwan Strait are not providing one another with sufficient assurances. For example, to enhance deterrence, Washington must make clear that it opposes any unilateral change to the status quo, not only an attempt by Beijing to compel unification but also a political move by Taipei to pursue independence.

That would be fine, if it were actually working. It's not -- the United States is already doing that. That's quite literally their position right now. So what exactly is supposed to change here? The implicit point of the article is that current assurances are insufficient or not credible, but what other assurance other than the ones already given can the US provide? Despite already doing exactly what Glaser is recommending, China continues its threats, military buildup and march to war. 

The assurance China actually wants from the United States is one that the US simply cannot give; it wants an indication that if it were to instigate war, the US would not intervene in any way, even if -- especially if -- things got violent. Which they absolutely would. 

The US cannot assure China in this way because they don't want to. They want China to realize that the threat of a US reaction is very real, and Glaser herself seems to agree this is wise. 

Combined with a conditional and credible threat of a military response by the United States and Taiwan to the use of force, such assurances will help prevent a war.

Will they? Because this is exactly what the United States and Taiwan are already doing, and it hasn't stopped Beijing from ramping up the aggression and threatening ever more imminent war. The three authors make it sound like this would be a helpful change in policy that can take everyone off the current path to bloodshed, but it's not a change, so what change do they expect from Beijing?

I also don't appreciate the phrasing of "help prevent a war", as though wars just sort of happen for no no reason, or have no agent. Worse, it implies that it's the United States and Taiwan that might "cause a war", when China is the one threatening it, and China is the only country that wants it. The entity that can prevent the war is the one threatening to start it in the first place!

The advised action for the US and China to not "cause a war" (scoff) is to, again, do exactly what they are currently doing...which has landed us on this path to the war we must somehow prevent? Can someone explain to me how this is anything other than hamster wheel logic?

Ill-advised statements made in the past by former and current U.S. officials suggesting that the United States should formally recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or restore a clear alliance commitment to defend the island would, if adopted, undercut assurances and weaken deterrence as surely as would a lack of military readiness.

At what point has the US government seemed to entertain the notion that the opinions of any of these officials -- I assume she means Mike Pompeo, among others -- be enacted into policy?  The closest we ever came to that was Pompeo saying it; if I recall correctly, he was already out of office.

Maybe Glaser has some sort of intelligence indicating that Beijing actually cares about these statements, even though it's plain that the US is going to do no such thing. Okay, but that's not something the US government can do; it amounts to advice to individuals not to run their mouths. 

Here's how we know that the US isn't going to move toward a formal recognition of Taiwan: the ruling DPP doesn't actually want that, right now. I mean, philosophically they absolutely do, but practically they're aware it's not a good time to make such moves because Taiwan is already doing everything it can to avoid a war. 

Maybe if Glaser spent more time in Taiwan, she'd realize this, and see that it hasn't had much of an effect on China's warmongering threats. 

Yes, I do know this for a fact. An election cycle is upon us, and there is zero chance the other parties in the race want formal recognition for Taiwan, either. So why would the US extend the offer? The implication that it might makes no sense.

Although the DPP is not always a unified voice, generally speaking the US doesn't make big moves regarding Taiwan without unofficially checking in with Taipei. This is another mistake analysts like Glaser make (and in fact Glaser herself has made). They assume the US just sort of...decides to do favors for Taiwan, and never asks Taiwan if they want those favors. Presumably, offering formal diplomatic recognition would fall into that category, if it were a thing? (It is manifestly not a thing). 

U.S. military threats will lose their potency if Chinese leaders believe that the United States will take advantage of their restraint to promote Taiwan’s formal independence or to prevent unification under any circumstances, even if it were to result from peaceful, uncoerced negotiation. Beijing may determine that refraining from an attack would mean it would forever lose the possibility of unification...

This is the biggest farce in the entire article. Do the authors truly believe unification from "peaceful, uncoerced negotiation" is ever going to happen? It isn't, because Taiwan does not want this, and public opinion has been (steadily, with a few bumps) moving away from ever wanting it. It's safe to say that the Taiwanese public wants peace, doesn't want to make any big moves, is willing to put off the big domestic questions of the country's name and constitution until some future date, but does not want unification -- now or ever. 

Besides, can such negotiation ever be "uncoerced"? This disregards all the ways in which China tries to non-violently coerce Taiwan into accepting concepts of 'one China' that it never actually agreed to. From the attempts at an economic stranglehold to cutting Taiwan off from the global pandemic response, to disinformation campaigns, election interference, cybersecurity threats and attempts to denigrate Taiwan to any and all international entities, China is already trying to coerce Taiwan to "non-violently" negotiate! 

This is as offensive as looking at an abusive relationship -- except it's not even a relationship as Taiwan and China aren't together -- and seeing a controlling narcissist try to control their partner's finances and movements, as well as isolating them from their friends. Then, the couple announces to everyone they know that they "agreed" to marry...everyone knows the controlling partner bullied their victim into "agreeing", and perhaps it was not "violent", but it would absolutely be "coerced". 

China is already doing this to Taiwan, so it is not possible -- let me make myself absolutely clear, it is not fucking possible -- for such negotations to be "uncoerced". 

And fuck you, you abuse-excusing shitbag, if you think this is acceptable. 

(If you're thinking "did Lao Ren Cha just call three 'eminent' China scholars 'shitbags'...well, not directly, and they're probably very nice people to have coffee with I guess, but if this is actually what they believe, then look at their beliefs and judge for yourselves.) 

One more thing before we move on: it is also not possible to provide this assurance. The authors say it more plainly than I expected: Beijing needs to believe that peaceful unification is possible in order to not start a war.

They openly admit to the possibility, implying to some degree that it might be preferable, as at least it would be peaceful (yeah, and an emotional abuse victim who obeys because it's easier than having a lamp thrown at their head is also technically living in a 'peaceful' house). 

But it isn't, in any sense -- it isn't possible, and it isn't preferable. The Chinese government, as it exists today, but hopefully not forever, will never allow Taiwan to continue to have all of the things the people hold dear. Things like free and fair elections, freedom of expression, a free press and...not gulags. Wouldn't ya know, Taiwanese people remember what it was like to get disappeared and shot for having a contrary opinion and they're not fans. 

So why would Taiwan want to enter into "peaceful negotiations" when it knows that would be the result? It wouldn't, and we can see that from poll results showing Taiwanese don't. 

Hence, it's not only not preferable, it's not possible. This is not an assurance that the US and Taiwan could ever credibly give Beijing, because Taiwan will never choose "peaceful unification" of its own volition. 

What's more, Beijing certainly already knows this. So they know such assurances are hollow. 

If you don't think Beijing realizes this, either you think CCP officials are unimaginably stupid, or you yourself are. 

We all know Chen-Weiss is already a bootlicker, but Glaser -- who claims to care about Taiwan -- should know this. Is she grappling with cognitive dissonance, or just atrocious at her job?

Perhaps she has some inside information that we don't, indicating that Beijing would be willing to accept an obviously false "assurance". But I doubt this, because again, everything she is advising is something the US and Taiwan are already doing and it doesn't seem to have 'assured' Beijing at all. 

Besides, assuming Beijing is not stupid -- which Glaser et al. don't seem to believe -- we can be quite sure that the 'intel' and 'red lines' they are signaling to the US and its coterie of analysts who don't spend nearly enough time in Taiwan, are probably lies. Beijing lies about everything else; feeding bad intel to all those pesky experts far away in the US so they'll jabber on about irrelevant crap while they build up their capacity to subjugate Taiwan would be very on-brand for the CCP. 

And if China comes to that conclusion [that peaceful unification is not possible], then Washington’s focus on beefing up military power in the region may still fail to prevent a war.

If you think Beijing has not already come to that conclusion, you're either extraordinarily deluded, you have head trauma, or you are grappling with cognitive dissonance so profound that the best therapists probably can't help you. 

For effective deterrence, both threats and assurances must be credible. As the scholars Matthew Cebul, Allan Dafoe, and Nuno Monteiro have noted, “Power boosts the credibility of threats but undermines that of assurances.” This dynamic is what political scientists have long described as the security dilemma. 

Except, again, it is not possible for those assurances to be credible, because the only thing Beijing wants is the one thing it already knows it will never have.  

To issue credible threats and assurances simultaneously, leaders must cultivate “a reputation for restraint in the face of compliance” rather than simply a reputation for unconditionally inflicting punishment.

Since when has the US unconditionally inflicted punishment on China? If anything, the US has been restrained in the face of an ever more aggressive China. And what compliance are we talking about? With the ramping up of threats and active campaigns to undermine Taiwan's government and sovereignty, China is already not compliant. 

So the key question -- the one these three brain trusters never bother to ask -- is how can we provide an assurance that is actually credible, not an obvious lie like "Taiwan might choose peaceful unification", so as to render an uncompliant Beijing more willing to back off? 

It's not even clear that will work. The other question these geniuses don't ask is what China will do, nay, what China is already doing, to undermine Taiwan that is not exactly military in nature. 

Do they believe that assuring Beijing will stop the cybersecurity threats? The attempts to rig Taiwan's elections? The arbitrary detainment of Taiwanese in China? The absolute flood of disinformation corrupting Taiwanese grandparents the same way Fox News corrupted most of mine? 

Continue to "assure" China all you want with "credible assurances" that aren't remotely credible. Why not? It's what we're already doing. Just see if it stems Beijing's attempts to undermine Taiwan's sovereignty at every turn. It won't, because this is exactly what's happening now. 

So, again, what restraint? We're already restrained. What compliance? China is already not complaint!  

Beijing hopes to prevent Taiwan from further consolidating its separation from the mainland...

Taiwan doesn't have a mainland.  

Taipei and Washington hope to deter Beijing from attacking Taiwan to force unification.

Sure, but this implies that unforced unification is possible or even preferable. It is neither. Such an assertion cannot exist without the assumption that uncoerced unification is a possibility, because without that, no credible assurance is possible. 

But it is not a possibility, because Taiwanese people already know that it would be a disaster. They know this by looking at China's words and actions. Only Glaser and the other authors don't seem to have figured this out.

Yet all three parties have neglected corresponding efforts to signal to one another that these military preparations are not meant to alter the status quo or to preclude the prospect of an eventual peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences. 

This is false. I don't mean I disagree, I mean they are factually incorrect. The Tsai administration has said repeatedly that they have no intention to "alter the status quo". All they have done is note that the status quo means Taiwan is sovereign, because it is. The DPP has shown admirable restraint in not seeking a formal declaration of the independence Taiwan already has. It has faced down critics who think provoking a war would be worth such a declaration (for the record, I don't think it would be). It has been called "not actually pro-independence" for pursuing sovereignty alongside peace, yet it has stood firm. 

Where exactly is the failure here? 

President Tsai has said on multiple occasions that she welcomes discussions with Beijing. She is rejected every time, as Taiwan does not accept the concept that it is part of China. Beijing is the one stalling the peace process. This is a failure on the part of China, not Taiwan. 

As for the US, the same is true. Biden has said a few times that the US would stand with Taiwan were China to attack, but he has never said that he intends for the US to alter the status quo or stand in the way of the peace process. 

Where, again, is the failure? 

Only Beijing has failed. It has failed in being a partner in peace, in coming to the negotiating table with no prerequisites, in truly seeking a solution between equals without concurrent attempts to undermine Taiwan. 

The authors utterly fail to examine how unequal such a peace process would be, given China's current actions. At every turn, China tries to coerce Taiwan. Why would they assume that negotiations would be any different? 

I understand that it's not helpful for them to issue quite as many recommendations to Beijing, as Beijing simply won't take them. Taipei and Washington, on the other hand, actually listen to these three people. (Perhaps they shouldn't, but they do.) I get it -- you give advice to the one who might actually heed it. 

But in doing so, they imply unification would not be a bad thing, and place the blame on Washington and Taipei for a situation that is created entirely by Beijing. They refuse to assign Beijing as the originator of the threats of war, instead opting for a tired, outdated framing where Beijing has no agency, but is merely "provoked" by the actions of others. 

What is their advice to end these "provocations" (in this case, a lack of assurances?) For Beijing and Taipei to continue to do more or less exactly what they are already doing -- and yet somehow, call these actions a "failure"! 

Senior Biden administration officials have reaffirmed that the United States does not support Taiwan’s independence...

Here's where they give away their bias. Taiwan already is independent and anyone with two brain cells to rub together realizes this. They don't phrase it as "formal", "recognized" or "de jure" independence (though there is an argument to be made that Taiwan actually has de jure independence). They call it "independence", as though Taiwan is not currently sovereign. 

The only fair thing I can say here is that the Biden administration phrases it this way, too. They're wrong, too. Taiwan is independent; the only thing to 'not support' is formal recognition at this time. 

Unfortunately, officials in all three capitals have also expanded the scope of what they believe are legitimate measures to signal resolve in response to perceived threats, fueling a potentially dangerous spiral of actions and reactions.

Wrong. Only China has done this. The US has basically stayed the course, not entering into a formal defense pact but doing exactly what it has always done under the maze of policies created in the late 1970s. Taiwan has actually shown remarkable resolve not to rock the boat, although it has every moral justification for doing so.

Beijing, Taipei, and Washington have not reiterated key statements that once made an eventual peaceful resolution at least conceivable.

The only "peaceful resolution" Beijing will ever accept is to annex Taiwan, and everybody else knows this, so either the authors actually think it would be acceptable for Taiwan to be non-violently coerced into this, or they need to see a neurologist. 

Such assurances were never meant to promote a near-term resolution or to specify the details of any eventual resolution; they were meant to convey that there still might be peaceful ways of settling cross-strait differences.

The fundamental problem is that there probably aren't any peaceful ways to settle this.

Not while China can accept no peaceful resolution other than unification. Taiwan will never accept any peaceful resolution other than sovereignty (with admirable restraint, they have not demanded international recognition so as to prevent a war, so I'm not sure what Glaser et al. think they are doing wrong). 

I hate to say this. I don't want there to be no roads to peaceful resolution. But unless and until China recognizes that it cannot have Taiwan and will never have Taiwan, I don't see what those roads might be.

Glaser, Chen-Weiss and Christensen try here to play the 'unbiased' card, insisting that they aren't outlining details of such a potential resolution. But that they seem to think that the government of China, as it exists now, might be 'assured' into good-faith negotiation with Taiwan as equals -- and that right there is where they show their asses. 

To not even ponder the notion that Beijing deliberately pretends to act in good faith while doing everything it can to undermine the other party is astounding to me. It is not serious. So how can we take these three seriously?

For instance, Beijing’s proposals regarding the governance of a future Taiwan unified with the mainland have grown less generous over time. The “one country, two systems” offer that Beijing made in a 1993 white paper included allowing the island to “have its own administrative and legislative powers, an independent judiciary, and the right of adjudication” as well as “its own party, political, military, economic, and financial affairs,” and a pledge that Beijing would not send troops or administrative personnel to be stationed in Taiwan. 

Uh huh, and if you think this offer was in good faith, and would not be walked back the second Beijing felt like it, I present to you Hong Kong's Fate. 

The former assurance disappeared in China’s 2000 white paper on the topic, and the latter was removed in its 2022 iteration. “One country, two systems” was never a popular concept in Taiwan, and it has become even less so now that Beijing has tightened its hold on Hong Kong, where it had pioneered the approach. Combined with increasingly aggressive and frequent Chinese military operations near Taiwan, the failure to offer more attractive options for Taiwan’s future only makes Beijing seem both more threatening and less trustworthy.

If you mention Hong Kong you have to admit that what was offered in the 1990s was a promise that Beijing was never intending to keep. 

Regardless, in 1993 Taiwan was not a democracy, and two dictatorships uniting is perhaps less impactful and problematic than a democracy uniting with a dictatorship. Are the authors unaware that Taiwan has changed a lot since 1993, as well?

Besides, this implies that Beijing possibly could make an offer that Taiwanese would find attractive. It cannot, because Taiwanese -- unlike Glaser, Chen-Weiss and Christensen -- are smart enough to see that Beijing only knows how to lie. 

It implies that there is a form of unification between a (comparatively small) democracy and a (large) dictatorship in which the democracy might come out ahead, or even get to keep its democracy. There never was, not in 1993, not after democratization, and not now. Not ever. 

Let me repeat, because some people clearly need to hear it more than once: the fundamental problem is that China has never made Taiwan a tempting, credible offer, because no such offer exists. There is no iteration of unification that would be good for Taiwan and Taiwanese know this. 

The only assurance China will accept is that unification without war is possible (they never intended to drop the coercion). That assurance is not possible to give, because Taiwanese do not want it and never will. Therefore, it is not credible. 

Tell me again, what "credible assurances" are we meant to offer Beijing, when all the truly credible ones have been rejected?

And although she has resisted pressure from radicals in her own party to pursue measures that would likely be interpreted in Beijing as moves in the direction of independence—such as ceasing to use the Republic of China national anthem or insisting on the use of the moniker “Taiwan” rather than “Chinese Taipei” at international sporting events—Tsai has allowed the teaching of Taiwan’s history separate from the history of China in high schools.

Everything they say before this is fine; it's simply a summary of how the Tsai administration has handled China. Nothing in it deviates from their advice, despite their saying that Taipei is one of the actors that has "failed" to "assure" the other side. 

This, however, is actively offensive. The implication that it is somehow bad to teach Taiwanese history in Taiwan is deeply troubling. 

What's more, Tsai can't allow or not allow this; the president doesn't set the educational standards. This isn't a totalitarian state where a person or a party can unilaterally decide what may or may not be taught in schools, and it is deeply, overtly offensive to Taiwan to imply they can.

What is the alternative? Teaching history as though Taiwan is a part of China? Unless you're a dirty unificationist, how is teaching your own country's history a problem, but teaching a history that mostly has nothing to do with Taiwan correct?

If you didn't think the authors had a pro-China bias before, this should seal it. This whole thing reads like their plan for Taiwan is to first, teach Taiwanese kids that they are Chinese, second, look the other way as Beijing undermines Taiwan during negotiations (pretending that non-violent coercion is not coercion), and three, accept unification and call it "peace".

It's nonsense. Dirty unificationist nonsense.

I don't know how else to say it. Anyone who thinks Taiwan should placate China by not teaching its own history to its own citizens can. get. fucked. 

And questions remain about the sustainability of Taiwan’s restraint in the future. The current DPP vice president and front-runner in the presidential election scheduled for January 13, 2024, Lai Ching-te, has in the past advocated for independence more stridently than Tsai, describing himself in 2017 as a “political worker for Taiwan independence.”

It is true that he had this reputation and retains some vestige of it, but he has said and done no such thing in the current campaign. So what's the problem? Do you think the DPP should only run candidates who aren't "political workers for independence" or "strident" independence supporters? 

Almost all of them are! Would the authors prefer that the only candidates in Taiwan's elections be pro-China? You know -- exactly what China wants?

This reads not just like a China sellout screed, but like some Y2K era nonsense where DPP candidates were "troublemakers" simply for existing and not thinking Taiwan is part of China. 

More recently in July 2023, Lai told supporters at a campaign event that his party’s ambition is to have a sitting president of Taiwan “enter the White House,” which implies his goal is to upgrade Taiwan’s relationship with the United States, raising alarm in Beijing and prompting a request for clarification from Washington.

Is there currently an actual law or rule that says this can't happen? Or is it just precedent? Can a president not visit another president without a formal or official change in relationship? 

Besides, what is wrong with this as a future ambition? Did he say he wants to do this now, or even soon? I don't think so.

But the credibility of those statements [that the US doesn't support Taiwan independence] has been called into question by Biden’s repeated insistence that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if attacked because it made a commitment to do so, even though the United States has not had a formal obligation to defend Taiwan since it abrogated the alliance with Taipei in 1979 as a precondition to normalizing diplomatic relations with Beijing.

Ah, so you agree that what Beijing really wants is not an assurance that the status quo will continue, but an assurance that it can attack Taiwan and the US will let it happen? 

Thanks for admitting it so overtly. 

Biden administration officials have also noticeably failed to confirm that the United States would accept any peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences achieved through negotiations and without coercion. The Biden administration’s omission of this assurance has increased Beijing’s suspicions that Washington would never accept any form of cross-strait integration, even if achieved through nonviolent means.

Isn't this exactly what US policy currently says? It's as if you're admitting that Beijing can't have what it wants and everybody already knows this. 

And again, how exactly do we achieve the "without coercion" aspect, when Beijing only knows coercion? 

To do what the authors suggest would be to signal to Beijing that they can do everything but start a war to twist Taiwan's arm, and as long as there are no shots fired, it's all good. 

I've known abusers who never laid a finger on their victims, and this makes me sick. 

I cannot express this strongly enough: I have seen this dynamic in real life. The "it's not force, I never touched them" controlling abuse. I've seen the people who believe the abusers when they say this because no shots were fired, no hands were thrown. I am not talking metaphorically. I mean I have seen this. As with people, so with countries. Beijing is a government that knows only abuse.

It is no exaggeration to say that, in pretending Beijing wouldn't do this, Glaser, Chen-Weiss and Christensen make me want to vomit. It's disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves. 

But U.S. actions, paired with the rhetoric of American officials, have also raised fears in Beijing that the United States seeks to “use Taiwan to contain China,” as China’s State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi charged at a press conference in August 2022, and to restore something akin to the alliance that existed with Taipei before 1979. 

Has it not occurred to the authors that the reason nonviolent integration is not possible has nothing to do with what the US wants, but rests entirely with the fact that Taiwanese people do not want it? And they do not want it not because China has not made a good enough offer, but because they see (as the authors don't) that no author from an abuser could ever be credible? 

I'm used to Chen-Weiss not thinking Taiwanese people have agency. She's a well-trained bootlicker. But Glaser? Come on. 

Besides, if you quote Wang Yi even remotely uncritically, you are not serious. 

I'm skipping a lot here, but let's move to the authors' recommendations for Taiwan (China isn't going to do what they advise, anyway). 

For its part, Taiwan must accompany needed measures to bolster its defense with credible assurances to Beijing that as long as the Chinese military refrains from attacking Taiwan, Taipei will not pursue independence or permanent separation. Taiwan should refrain from potentially provocative actions, such as holding a referendum to change its official name, the Republic of China, or revising its territorial claims to exclude mainland China—changes that would indicate a declaration of formal independence.

So...exactly what Taiwan is currently doing? What exactly is the problem? What is the failure? 

Do you secretly want Taiwan to marry her abuser?

Regardless of who is elected Taiwan’s next president, Taipei will need to convincingly reassure Beijing that it has no intention of fundamentally altering the status quo.

The problem is that while Taiwan has no intention of doing so currently, in fact, they do not want to move toward peaceful unification -- only you three, and Beijing seem to want that -- and they actually do want to keep the independence they currently enjoy. If it were formalized, all the better, but the authors repeatedly conflate "independence" (which is a current reality) and "formal independence" (which even Taiwanese aren't asking for right now). Their bias is showing.

But the need for such guarantees will grow in the event of the victory of Lai, the DPP candidate; Chinese officials deeply mistrust him since he has endorsed the pursuit of formal independence for Taiwan in the past. 

CCP officials distrust any candidate they did not personally help elect, and deeply distrust any DPP official. Either we accept this, or we advocate that China should get to choose who gets elected in Taiwan. Is that what we want?

The pledge that Lai made, in an October 2023 speech in Taipei at a dinner attended by nearly 100 foreign dignitaries and guests, to maintain Tsai’s cross-strait policy, with its emphasis on refusing both to bow to Chinese pressure and to provoke Beijing, is a good start. If elected, Lai could use his inaugural address to reaffirm the commitments Tsai made in her inaugural speech in 2016 to conduct cross-strait affairs in accordance with the Republic of China’s constitution and the 1992 act governing relations between the two sides of the strait, Taipei’s law on how the island should manage relations with Beijing.

Right, so, exactly what he has been doing and has indicated he will do? What's the problem? Why did you say earlier that Taipei had "failed" to assure Beijing, when they are "assuring" them in exactly the way you suggest?

Why the fearmongering that he's going to suddenly veer off-course? 

Regardless, this is what Taiwan has indeed been doing since 2016. China has not responded in kind. It has escalated, not scaled back. It has shown aggression, not restraint. What good are these assurances you call for, if we already know they don't work?

Also, it's not an island. It's a group of islands that together form a country.

As the third party to this dispute, the United States must also think carefully about its mix of threats and assurances. Its priority is to prevent the Chinese military from attacking Taiwan, but deterrence will not work if Beijing does not believe U.S. assurances. For instance, it is in the United States’ interest for China to remain hopeful that sometime in the future it might be able to resolve its differences with Taiwan without resorting to violence. 

The problem is that Beijing probably should not believe these assurances, as they are false. If they have hope for nonviolent resolution, fine, but as of right now there is, indeed, no way for China to peacefully get what it wants. 

The biggest issue here, which the authors do not seem to understand, is that Beijing probably already knows this. This is why assurances to the contrary cannot truly be 'credible', and why Beijing cannot be trusted to act in good faith. 

China would have to persuade Taiwan’s public of the merits of some form of peaceful integration—a hard sell, but not impossible given China’s economic clout...

Yeah no, sorry, Taiwanese aren't that stupid. Maybe you are, but they're not. Promises from abusers are worthless. All they know is abuse. 

If you spent more time in Taiwan, you'd know this as most Taiwanese do. 

...and the possibility that a more attractive government may someday emerge in Beijing. 

Do you honestly think that "maybe you can have Taiwan if your government totally changes and the CCP basically loses power" is something Beijing can be sold on?

Besides, I'm not sure Taiwan would want to "integrate" -- to use the authors' silly euphemism -- even if the Chinese government underwent radical reform. 

It doesn't matter, though. You know the old adage that one should only be friends with an ex after they no longer care as much if they're friends with that ex? 

Any government in Beijing that might tempt Taiwan toward unification would be such a good government, that it would no longer demand unification, and respect Taiwan's right to self-determination! 

But hey, if Bonnie Glaser, Jessica Chen-Weiss and Tom Christensen are actually advocating for the overthrow of the CCP, on that I agree. The CCP should be overthrown and Xi Jinping should spend the rest of his life in prison. Better yet, he should get the Ceaucescu treatment. 

To the extent that Washington can influence Chinese President Xi Jinping’s thinking on this crucial issue, it should do so; the United States should avoid making statements or taking actions that could lead Beijing to conclude that unification can only be achieved through force.

I don't know how many times I can say this. There is no possibility for unification without force now or in the near future...and probably ever. So how are we meant to 'assure' Beijing or 'give them hope' for something they know as well as I do, and most Taiwanese do, that such a possibility simply does not exist?

I am asking you, Glaser, Chen-Weiss and Christensen. How exactly do you recommend that we lie to Beijing? What words should we use to make a lie seem potentially true?

Consistent with its “one China” policy of not supporting an independent Taiwan or seeking to restore a formal alliance with Taipei, the U.S. government should not use in its official communications symbols of Taiwan’s sovereignty, such as the flag of the Republic of China, or refer to Taiwan as either a country or an ally, as the Trump administration did in a 2019 Defense Department report. If U.S. officials do so inadvertently, such as when U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken referred to Taiwan as a country on two occasions in 2021, a correction should be swiftly issued.

So, you do want the US to lie? Taiwan is a country, it is sovereign, and it has symbols of sovereignty. You want the US to pretend these things are not true. You want your country to overtly, transparently lie.

Glad we cleared that up. 

And since Beijing fears that Taiwan may merely be a pawn in a wider American game of containment, U.S. officials should not imply that Taiwan is a strategic asset essential to U.S. national security.

Beijing probably realizes more than it will admit that Taiwan isn't interested in unification because Taiwanese people don't want it, not because the US won't allow it. 

In fact, it's really weird that the authors are implying that the US is some staunch supporter of independence or is actively pursuing this goal, when that's simply not true. 

But let's say Beijing does fear that Taiwan is a 'pawn' even though it's not, and pro-Taiwan sentiment stems entirely from Taiwan. Okay...the problem is that Taiwan actually is a strategic asset. (A country can be an asset without being a pawn). 

So, again, you want the US to transparently lie?

In the most egregious misstatement of U.S. policy on Taiwan to date, Biden told reporters in November 2021 that Taiwan “is independent” and “makes its own decisions,” a description that contravenes long-standing U.S. policy that does not recognize Taiwan as an independent, sovereign state.

The problem here is that Taiwan actually is independent and actually does make its own decisions, so again, you want Biden and the US government to lie. 

Sure, yeah, policy, whatever. But these things are true, policy or not, and to deny them is to lie. 

A more complete statement, such as a speech by the national security adviser or the secretary of state, should restate the positions that Biden has reportedly made clear to Xi, including that the United States does not support Taiwan’s independence, opposes any unilateral change to the status quo by either side, does not pursue a “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” policy, and does not seek to use Taiwan as part of a strategy to contain China or embolden Taipei to push for independence. Such a statement should include the assurance provided by prior administrations that the United States will accept any outcome reached peacefully by both sides and that has the assent of the people of Taiwan.

I do understand that "does not support independence" and "does not pursue a 'two Chinas' or a 'one China, one Taiwan' policy" does not necessarily mean the US opposes an outcome where Taiwan's current independence is formalized. They are, very technically, different things. Not pursuing a policy doesn't mean one won't accept an outcome.

But, this could easily be misread as pushing for unification because it seems on the surface as the most "peaceful" outcome. It's not well-worded and, I think, reveals a pro-China bias on the part of the authors. There's a lot of talk about potential unification. Where is the discussion of what an outcome of independence could mean?

I would still love to see a framework by which we could be assured that any agreement truly has the assent of the Taiwanese people. With China trying to interfere in Taiwan's elections, and throwing a baby hissy fit every time Taiwan does even the smallest thing -- like, oh, teach its own history to its own people -- I don't see currently how that is possible. 

Until recently, no Biden administration official had publicly called for the resumption of cross-strait dialogue to reduce misunderstandings and manage problems, a position that was central to U.S. policy before the Trump administration.

Perhaps they have realized that Xi and his minions are not capable of dialogue in good faith -- something Taiwanese realized years ago?

Even though Beijing is responsible for the breakdown of cross-strait dialogue, the failure of the United States to encourage a return to talks has been interpreted by Beijing as further evidence that Washington does not want the two sides of the strait to settle their disputes.

I believe that is what Beijing has led the authors to believe. This is exactly the sort of lie they tell, which analysts believe as Beijing's true, good-faith position. 

In truth, Beijing has no intention of resuming dialogue unless Taiwan accepts the concept that it is part of China. Beijing has made this clear to Taiwan. Perhaps if these analysts spent more time in Taiwan, they'd realize it too. Abusers lie, and Beijing is a government of abusers.

At least they recognize that Beijing is entirely to blame for the breakdown. Frankly, that's more than I expected of them. In this, they are correct. 

***

Alright, I'm tired and this article is long. There is not much else to say that isn't a further repetition of what I've already said. There's more to this piece, but I don't have it in me to keep refuting the same nonsense in the same way.

This article is mostly nonsense, undercuts Taiwan's sovereignty and agency, ignores an atmosphere of abuse perpetuated by Beijing, and both advises Taipei and Washington to do exactly what they have been doing, while implying somehow that they are not doing things correctly. It offers solutions to 'assure' Beijing that have been tried -- that are currently implemented -- and have not worked. It pushes unification as a real possibility far more than independence, conflates independence with international recognition, and criticizes Taiwan for even the tiniest steps toward taking pride in itself and its achievements. 

The fundamental disconnect here is that the three authors -- not all of whom I'd taken for China sellouts and CCP bootlickers until I read this tripe -- assume that good-faith negotiation with China is possible, and therefore an "uncoerced" solution is therefore, well...possible. It is not, because the situation is already not uncoerced. China is trying to coerce Taiwan right now. Assuming that free and fair negotations can even happen with a government like China's is like assuming a controlling narcissist might be a good relationship partner. They can't; it is not possible.

How, then, do we convince Beijing that peaceful unification is possible when it fundamentally is not?

It's nonsense, and that nonsense was never taken out of context.