【縛雞之見】
20171121 Taiwan’s
status can’t be changed unilaterally
By HoonTing 雲程
An
Act to check Beijing’s fait accompli strategy by HoonTing 遏止現狀被北京扭曲的〈台灣防衛法〉(完整)
20190804 Little-known
fact on sovereignty By HoonTing 雲程
/ Mon, Apr 08, 2019 - Page 6
20181215 Final
sovereignty transfer needed HoonTing@Taipei Times 20181215 Translated by Chang
Ho-ming
20181123 A
nation awaiting its fate from 1946 HoonTing@Taipei Times Fri, Nov 23, 2018 -
Page 8
20180908 A
post-war view of Taiwan-US ties By HoonTing 雲程@Taipei Times 20180908
Draft US
bill is a warning to Beijing By
HoonTing 雲程 20200623
US Senator Josh Hawley introduced his draft Taiwan Defense Act to the Senate on June 11. Like its predecessors — the Taiwan Travel Act and the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act in 2018, and the Taiwan Assurance Act last year — decisive majorities in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate are expected to support this bill, making US President Donald Trump’s administration legally obligated to implement it.
These laws adopted in the past few years — along with previously existing
legislation, such as the Taiwan Relations Act and the “six assurances,” to the
extent that the latter have been written down — express the path that Taiwan
has followed in its post-war reconstruction from a
de facto state to a political one.
The passive aspect of these
laws is that they have prevented Taiwan’s powerful neighbor from depriving it
of its political and economic achievements.
Their active aspect is that
they have laid the basic foundation of governance
necessary for Taiwan to exist as a political state.
In an article published three years ago in the Taipei Times, I reminded
decisionmakers that the San Francisco Peace Treaty obligates
the US, as the principal occupying power, to
preserve territories (“Taiwan’s
status can’t be changed unilaterally,” Nov. 21, 2017, page 8).
The key concept of US policy regarding security in the western Pacific is
therefore to preserve the “status quo,” but unfortunately China has changed the “status quo” into a fait
accompli.
In view of this, the draft Taiwan Defense Act says at the outset that it
is “a bill to maintain the ability of the United States Armed Forces to deny a fait
accompli by the People’s Republic of China against Taiwan.”
As well as being targeted solely at the People’s Republic of China, the bill mentions the term fait accompli no fewer
than 32 times.
The bill praises Taiwan as “a beacon of democracy in Asia” and “a
steadfast partner ... in the common pursuit of a free and open Indo-Pacific
region in which all societies enjoy sovereign
autonomy.”
In contrast, the longstanding intent of Beijing’s military modernization
is to unite Taiwan with China by force.
At the same time, Beijing also aims to impose its will on neighboring
countries and preventing US access to trade routes and markets in the
Indo-Pacific region, thereby undermining the American way of life.
This makes relations between Taiwan and China an existential issue for
the US and lends legitimacy to Hawley’s bill.
The bill presumes that China plans to seize Taiwan by force through a
lightning strike, and that once it establishes a fait
accompli, it would be difficult for the US to restore the previous “status
quo.”
In that case, Taiwan would change from an asset for the US in its
Indo-Pacific strategy to a burden.
The US therefore seeks to delay, degrade and defeat China’s
aforementioned plan.
To achieve this, the bill calls for maintaining military deterrence
capabilities by developing new operational concepts.
The bill also calls for employing a global operating model with multi-domain
operations.
If the US Congress passes the Taiwan Defense Act, it would be a factor that China would have to take into account in its
desire to alter the cross-strait “status quo,” and it would also be a factor
that it could not afford to misjudge.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2020/06/23/2003738688
搬了。
回覆刪除最近川普受左膠媒體圍毆,說川普本質是最傾中的,只是外表包裝成最反共的,故意打亂行情,搞得霧煞煞,實在有點奏效耶。
參考:"美國的川普,中國的「川建國」"
https://cn.nytimes.com/opinion/20200623/trump-china-john-bolton-book/zh-hant/
「受左膠媒體圍毆」現象本身就與「最傾中」的結論互相矛盾。
刪除誰都知道,左膠媒體最「不反共」,因此他們所攻擊的,必是反共者。
直接看行為,最清楚。