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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS