In response to threats recently leveled at Taiwan by a mid-level Chinese official, the US state department has reiterated its policy that the use of force is not an acceptable way of resolving the difference of opinion over the cross-strait issue. The State Department also reiterated US opposition to any unilateral change to the cross-strait status quo.
The US opposes the use of force to solve the cross-strait dispute; that position is clear. The US should not be alone in persisting in this policy. What's more, a love for peace and an opposition to the use of force to resolve conflicts are important parts of the UN Charter. The position stated by the US when it established diplomatic relations with China was that it would not tolerate an armed solution to the cross-strait dispute. It was both appropriate and necessary for the US to reiterate this point as a reminder to China.
The second part of the statement, however -- that the US opposes any unilateral attempt to change the cross-strait status quo -- is not clear, and it is unfair to Taiwan's democratic progress. There is no agreement about the exact definition of the cross-strait status quo, nor is there any clear definition of what the US means by the status quo.
Since there is no agreed definition, opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo is a matter of subjectivity.
There are three fundamental components to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait:
First, for more than half a century, neither Taiwan nor China has been under the jurisdiction of the other side, and they have both had their own government, territory and people.
Second, the only possible way change the status quo would be to change "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" into "one country on both sides of the Taiwan Strait."
Third, there is no Taiwanese policy aiming at one country on both sides.
China is the only country that wants to change the status quo, and the only country attempting to use force to coerce Taiwan into changing the status quo.
This has been the fundamental cross-strait status for more than half a century. Based on democratic values and the spirit of the UN Charter, the policy of the US and the international community should not be to talk frivolously about opposing unilateral changes to the status quo. Rather, it should be to actively recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, thus allowing one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait to develop independently towards democracy and freedom.
If the US and the international community, including China, do not recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, but instead allow China to interpret the status quo and define what Taiwan can and cannot do, then they will be sacrificing the principles of democracy. What's more, China's dominating mind-set will harm regional stability and normal development.
As a democratic country, the US cannot tolerate China's arbitrary meddling in Taiwan's democratic development. The US must not give China the freedom to define Taiwanese independence. Taiwan is not part of China's territory, nor is it a colony of any country. It is an independent, democratic country built on popular sovereignty. Its people have the final right to make decisions concerning reform of their governmental system and policy adjustments. Its people have the right to amend the anachronistic and inappropriate Constitution that they in the past have been forced to accept, or to create a new constitution.
If Taiwan needs China's approval to amend its Constitution, or to create a new constitution, then Taiwan is not an independent country, but has deteriorated to the same position as Hong Kong. But Taiwan's status quo is not that of Hong Kong. Taiwan hass a currently implemented Constitution, while China has a dictatorial and totalitarian "constitution" that is in direct opposition to democracy, freedom and human rights.
China's constitution stipulates that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China." That in itself is an attempt to change the status quo, which is that neither of the two sides has anything to do with the other side. China is the kind of non-democratic, domineering country that the US State Department should condemn.
Towards the end of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rule, Taiwan's "Constitution of the Republic of China" was amended, the Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion (
Former president Lee Teng-hui (
It is true that there are differing opinions regarding the "special state-to-state" and "one country on each side" models in Taiwan. Just as with the issue of a majority of people opposing those who accept the "one China" model, however, this is a domestic issue that can be addressed through the democratic process. The workings of this democratic process should be enthusiastically supported by all democratic countries. The US should not take a conservative approach towards Taiwan's democratic development just because a non-democratic country with hegemonic ambitions harbors a differing opinion.
Democracy is a process of growth and development. The US must not restrict Taiwan's democracy and turn it into a "birdcage democracy," nor should it restrict Taiwan by turning that birdcage into the status quo.
The US has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. It has no grounds for accepting China's demands for restricting Taiwan's democracy. The Taiwan Relations Act treats Taiwan as an independent country, and it calls this island, its people and its government "Taiwan." It is only natural that the people of Taiwan are called by their right name and that a new constitution should be created. It is China that is blocking the development of Taiwanese democracy and attempting to crush the "one country on each side" model, as well as the stable development of each side. Taiwan merely asks that the two remain separated and that each side respect the other side's internal democratic reforms.
If the US treats the deepening of Taiwanese democracy -- and pragmatic progress toward sovereignty -- as off limits, they are showing contempt for democratic principles and they are showing insufficient respect for Taiwan's democratic development.
US policy should be to recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, and to strongly urge China to follow the global trend toward democratization and liberalization and to strive for domestic and international peace and stability.
The real source of instability is a non-democratic country's interference with a democratic country's reforms.
James Wang is a Washington-based journalist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS