US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent trip to Japan, South Korea and China shows that some deep-seated misconceptions exist with regard to Taiwan and its international status.
While it should be appreciated that Powell urged Beijing to ac-knowledge President Chen Shui-bian's (
In any case, the Chinese authorities rejected Chen's call for cross-strait talks, after which Powell gave them an earful about US plans to sell defensive wea-pons to Taiwan -- an obvious move to counter the military buildup on Beijing's part.
But it was his subsequent remarks which got him into hot water with Taiwan. In an interview with CNN Asia correspondent Mike Chinoy, he stated: "We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would pre-judice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking."
This second part of this remark is simply false because the "party" that is most directly concerned -- the people of Taiwan -- overwhelmingly reject reunification. In most recent opinion polls, less than 10 percent of those interviewed supported reunification (even if China would become democratic). In any case, reunification is a misnomer, since Taiwan was never part of the People's Republic of China in the first place.
Furthermore, "reunification" has never been part of US policy either. It does not appear in the Taiwan Relations Act or in any other US policy statement regarding Taiwan. In fact, for the past six administrations, the US has been neutral on the eventual status of Taiwan. The US has only emphasized that it should be a peaceful resolution, and more recently added "with the consent of the people of Taiwan."
Of course, this is not the first time that a high-ranking US official has made this kind of error. In 1998, former president Bill Clinton fell into the same trap. During a speech at Pekjing University, he said that US policy is "no obstacle to peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan."
Every so often the US State Department emphasizes that US policy toward Taiwan is clear. Well, if it is so clear, then why do presidents and the secretaries of state make such blunders?
Adding insult to injury, Powell said in a later interview with Phoenix TV: "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
Someone needs to remind Powell that sovereignty as a nation does not depend on US recognition. This is stated in the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, signed by the US on Dec. 26, 1933, which stipulates that "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
This convention contains the universally-accepted doctrine that a "state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a permanent population; a defined territory; government and capacity to enter into relations with the other states."
Taiwan fulfills all of these qualifications.
The problem of Taiwan's non-recognition does not stem from the fact that it is not a nation-state -- it is a nation-state by any definition of the term -- but from the fact that for decades the previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration continued to claim itself to be the rightful government of all of China.
This outdated claim was perpetuated until the early 1990s, but was increasingly not recognized internationally. One still finds its anachronistic remnants in the formal name of the country ("Republic of China"), its flag, national anthem, and history and geography books, as well as the names of some of the national companies, such as China Petroleum Co, China Steel Corp and China Airlines.
Thus, if Taiwan is to gain international recognition as a free and democratic nation, it needs to rid itself of these peculiar remnants of the KMT's China-oriented rule. The KMT left China more than 50 years ago. It is time to look toward the future and work toward Taiwan's membership in the international family of nations as a full and equal member.
In the meantime, Powell would do well to study up on US policies toward Taiwan. The present policy basically is that the US favors a peaceful resolution and does not take a position on the eventual outcome. More recently, the US has also added "the consent of the people of Taiwan" as a determining factor.
Still, that is not good enough: the "one China" mantra is an outdated relic, which is based on the situation in the 1970s, and has not taken into account the new reality that Taiwan has evolved from a repressive KMT authoritarian regime (claiming sovereignty over China) in the 1970s to a vibrant and open Taiwanese democracy in the 21st century.
It's time for a change in policy which aims at normalizing US and Western European diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Chen Mei-chin is editor of Taiwan Communique, an international publication based in Washington.
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