On Jan. 11, prior to finishing his tenure as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Stanley Roth gave a final speech entitled, "US Policy Toward Asia: Where We've Been, Where We Need To Go," at the invitation of the Asia Society. In the speech, he quoted Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen
Roth went on to admonish Taiwan, saying, "Unless China believes Taiwan is willing to abide by the `one China' principle, it won't play the three links game with Taiwan." Here, a diplomatic official of a Democratic administration in the US conveyed a message from the authorities in Beijing at the end of his tenure.
This rare and serious violation of equality in international relations was very surprising. Sure enough, a day later the Minister of Foreign Affairs Tien Hung-mao
Not long ago, the Beijing authorities appealed to Taipei to accept the 1992 consensus regarding "one China" and immediately start cross-strait talks. They said anything could be open to discussion. The fact is, however, that in 1992, the Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF, 海基會) and China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS, 海協會) were still struggling at negotiations in Hong Kong, as both sides insisted that the their governmentrepresented the "one China." Later, the Beijing delegates were forced to recognize that in fact the two sides each had a completely different understanding and perception of the "one China" principle. The Beijing delegates therefore suggested that both sides avoid raising the political implications of "one China." They felt it would be sufficient for each side to express verbally its insistence on "one China."
From this we can see clearly that, in fact, the so-called consensus of that time was indeed nothing more than "`one China,' with each side having its own interpretation"
Qian's words, however, as quoted by Roth, obviously show that the Beijing authorities have retracted their position on the 1992 consensus. He changed the two parties at odds over "one China" from "the PRC and the ROC" to "the PRC and Taiwan." This revision immediately gives rise to the following two problems.
First, Qian said, "the PRC and Taiwan are both parts of China." In his statement, "the ROC" was changed to "Taiwan" and, under the "one China" framework, Taiwan became a part of the PRC. This completely repudiates the 1992 consensus and implies that there no longer exists a dispute over the different connotations of "one China."
This is Qian playing word games in order to accomplish the goal of eradicating the ROC. It is also a return to the most primitive position of the Beijing authorities that in the past was written into formal diplomatic documents on numerous occasions -- ie. the PRC represents one China, the Beijing government is the central government, the ROC vanished after 1949 and the Taipei authorities are a local government.
Clearly, from beginning to end, the Beijing authorities never broke away from their basic thinking, a political scheme in which they are bent on eradicating the ROC and swallowing up Taiwan. Acting this way is of no help whatsoever to eliminating the dispute between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. It will only destroy the political foundation for negotiations between the two sides and the equality of each side's position in such negotia-tions.
The second problem resulting from Qian's "one China" speech is that it created "one China and one Taiwan" and implied that the current relations across the Taiwan Strait are between the PRC and Taiwan. In other words, he defined the relations as being between the center and a local region. The problem thus becomes one of a legal action by the PRC government recovering sovereignty over a territory, and the use of military force by the PRC against Taiwan becomes an issue of defending the integrity of the nation's territory and protecting the nation's sovereignty.
Did Qian have this goal in mind when he spoke of his "one China?" Perhaps he at least considered that "one China and one Taiwan" was more advantageous to the Beijing authorities than "`one China,' with each side having its own interpretation."
In our view, if the two sides of the Strait are unable to truly return to a recognition that there are two China entities and on this basis begin talks on "`one China,' with each side having its own interpretation," then the three links
For the Beijing authorities, the greatest difficulty at present is that they don't recognize that the ROC has already existed for 90 years. Like ostriches with their heads in the sand, they consider the ROC to have vanished of its own accord.
How can the Beijing authorities squarely face reality and acknowledge the existence of the ROC? They should study the materialist dialectics and historical materialism of Marxism-Leninism. Acknowledging reality and history is what materialism is all about. But the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has completely forgotten Marxism-Leninism. What kind of ideology does the CCP now have? It is merely a party that fights for wealth and privilege.
(This is the first part of a two-part series. Part two will appear tomorrow.)
Kan Yiu-yu is a former editor in chief of the Hong Kong-based Wen Wei Po. Chris Wu is editor in chief of the China Spring and China Affairs magazines. Yu Hao-cheng is a visiting scholar at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a board member of Human Rights in China.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations