Political/military Analysis: Neutrality Is Taiwan's Best Option

Neutrality is Taiwan’s Best Option By David Pendery Taipei Times Monday, Oct 06, 2008

Taiwan finds itself lodged in one of the most difficult political situations in the world today, with unresolved issues of sovereignty and nationality, the acute threat of conflict, and resultant vexatious relations with numerous other countries constantly curtailing progress and marring the country’s image at home and abroad. There is, therefore, an urgent need for creative and decisive action. Hsieh Zui-chi ( 謝 瑞 智 ) suggested such action in the Taipei Times recently, with his recommendation that Taiwan adopt a neutral stance in politics (“Taiwanese neutrality offers road out of abyss” Sept. 17, page 8). There is much to agree with in Hsieh’s article and the present piece can be considered a complement to his argument. In addition to neutrality, Taiwan approve constitutional amendments renouncing war as an instrument of state, and adopt and endorse an explicitly non-violent position in world affairs. The combination of these measures could reduce and/or eliminate the chance of war with China, and also bear fruit in many other ways for Taiwan and the world. The charged emotions surrounding the core issues of Taiwan’s sovereignty and political status have not always resulted in particularly clear or pragmatic discussion, which has impeded progress. In terms of this, we could probably include President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) talk of a “diplomatic truce” with China, as well as notions such as “de facto independence,” “one country on each side,” “special state-to-state relations” between China and Taiwan, and “one China, each with its own interpretation.” Finally there is that old saw about “maintaining the status quo”—a stance that by

1

definition means “do nothing.” None of these positions, models, doctrines, theories or whatever you want to call them have gone far in solving the thorny problems on table. In terms of these issues, Taiwan finds itself caught on the horns of a troublous trident that includes the remote possibility of actual independence, the just-as-distant possibility of unification with China, and the variety of kinda-sorta proposals referred to. Looming behind this discussion is the possibility of war. With the discussion now largely at loggerheads, I believe that alternative solutions should be considered. Enter the neutrality and nonviolence sanctioned here. Admittedly these suggestions are problematic. Along with a constitutional amendment based on Japan’s—which states that the people “forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes”—Taiwanese disarmament would have to take place. Though a dramatic move, this is by no means out of the question, having already been adopted by a select group of other peaceful, progressive nations. Of course, harsh international realities and threats cannot be ignored, and the maintenance of a viable national police or self-defense force would be necessary. This may acceptably be combined with a peaceful national posture. In the short term, threats from China would probably not disappear, but in time we might well find that the nation would find its more aggressive tendencies limited. Were China to threaten a nation that had renounced war, for example, it would probably be subject to a storm of criticism and pressure from other nations. As well, other nations could likely support Taiwan politically and militarily, and pressure China to soften its stance if a neutral, non-violent stance were adopted. These developments could require China to pragmatically re-think it’s current positions vis-a-vis Taiwan. Some will label this stance a capitulation, appeasement. In answer we say that the same was said of great non-violent peacemakers like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. And as

2

for those who want to dismiss these leaders with notions of hard-nosed realism and pragmatism ... good luck. These proposals are idealistic, they are humanistic—could they be for Taiwan? Courage and fortitude would be required, and there would no doubt be some discomfort and difficulty in the short term. In the long term, however, we might find a wealth of potential and positive change. Most importantly, the threat of war with China could be reduced and hopefully eradicated. Taiwan’s international status could be bolstered. And yet more, the policies proposed here could lead to fruitful new areas of investment and development in Taiwan and China, and promote creative, peaceful coexistence and human potential in this part of the world. In all of these ways, neutrality and non-violence could lead to a better future and more positive outcomes for Taiwan, China and the world.

3