The statement by US Secretary of State Colin Powell that "[Taiwan] does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation," and his call for a peaceful unification between Taiwan and China have stirred up heavy political crossfire in Taipei.
Although Powell later corrected part of his terminology in an interview with CNBC (saying the right term was "peaceful resolution," not "peaceful unification") and the administration of US President George W. Bush clarified that no policy change had been made toward China and Taiwan, the timing and motivation of the initial unusual expression of Washington's stance on the cross-strait situation deserves an in-depth analysis.
First, did Powell's statement indicate changes to the US' long-term "one China" policy or was it simply a personal description of the current cross-strait situation?
The so-called US "one China" policy derives from the 1972 Shanghai communique, in which the US stated that it "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China."
The US later agreed that the government of the People's Republic of China is the "sole legal government of China."
Under the "one China" policy, the US has never recognized Taiwan or the Republic of China as an independent and sovereign country.
From the perspective of policy implementation, the US has consistently rejected the idea of supporting Taiwan's participation in any international organizations where statehood is required. Even so, the principle is not entirely without exceptions given, for example, Bush's support of Taiwan's recent bid for observer status at the UN-affiliated World Health Assembly.
In this regard, Powell's interpretation should be treated as a continuation of the US' acknowledgement of Taiwan's official status quo. No political implication should be added into such a description.
As Chen pledged on several occasions, Taiwan will not preclude any possibilities for developing a future relationship with China -- as long as the formula is accepted by the people of Taiwan.
What Taiwan insists on is the process used to reach an ultimate resolution. It must go through a democratic procedure and requires a free choice made by Taiwan's 23 million people.
The most likely scenario is that the remarks were Powell's personal elaboration of statements made by Bush on Dec. 9 last year when he met with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao (
Sensing a growing consciousness of Taiwanese identity and a tendency toward de jure independence after Chen's re-election, Powell offered "lip service" to the Chinese leaders and hurt the Taiwanese people.
It is true that there have been ups and downs in relations between Washington and Taipei in the past 10 months. As Taiwan's leaders keep emphasizing Taiwan's independent sovereignty, Beijing has doubled its pressure on Washington.
It is natural for the Bush administration to make an extra effort to maintain a friendly atmosphere with its Chinese counterpart before the general election. Nevertheless, appeasing China should not be conducted at the expense of Taipei's pursuit of dialogue and normalization with Beijing.
Perhaps this was an unfortunate break in the momentum to press Beijing to be flexible on the resumption of cross-strait dialogue.
Liu Kuan-teh is a political commentator based in Taipei.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS