There have been many articles here debating US Secretary of State Colin Powell's Oct. 25 statement that "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation." When the Department of State later reiterated former president Ronald Reagan's "Six Assur-ances," many press organizations in Taiwan interpreted this action as saying that Powell's remarks were a slip of the tongue, or merely a "face saving" gesture, in order to gain favor with Chinese officials.
However, it appears that this point is worthy of further discussion. After a close examination of the historic record, I believe it can be said that the US has never regarded Taiwan as a "sovereign nation." In the State Department's list of sovereign nations, "Taiwan" is only included as a footnote (www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm).
I believe there is an easy way to clear up the entire dispute. The Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan should clarify the exact date that Taiwan became a sovereign nation. Then historians, legal researchers and others could quickly verify the true facts of the matter.
The sovereignty of Taiwan was at one time held by Japan. In the post World War II era, the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (
Moreover, it is commonly recognized that in the postwar peace treaty (the San Francisco Peace Treaty), although Japan ceded the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores," that sovereignty was not awarded to the ROC. In fact, for any territorial cession, there must be a specific date when the "new owners" assume sovereign control. There are many examples in history, such as the , the Louisiana cession in 1803, Alaskan cession in 1867 and the Puerto Rico cession in 1899.
Hence, in order to clear up all the confusion, it would be most helpful if the government could announce the exact date when the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" was transferred to the government of Taiwan.
Richard Hartzell
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath