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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS