Readers might find former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger's op-ed piece in the Washington Post of interest ("China: Containment Won't Work," June 13).
I will leave it to others to comment on Kissinger's prescriptions for US policy on China, which aim to "witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress."
And as for his statement that, "The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years," we might want to ask the Tibetans and Uighurs about that -- to mention only two peoples within China's present territory.
But I am more concerned with Kissinger's statement that, "Despite substantial US arms sales to Taiwan, Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles: American recognition of the one-China principle and opposition to an independent Taiwan; China's understanding that the United States requires the solution to be peaceful and is prepared to vindicate that principle; restraint by all parties in not exacerbating tensions in the Taiwan Strait."
Surely you jest, Mr. Kissinger.
You were there at its creation, so you know full well that the Shanghai Communique never said that the US "recognizes" Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China. "Acknowledges" is the word that was used, and with clear intent to show that the US knew this was Beijing's position but that the US did not ratify this position. Testimony in hearings before Congress by numerous State Department officials over the years have underscored this point.
I believe that anyone reading the Kissinger article would come away with the clear idea that the US recognizes Beijing's claim to Taiwan as part of China. But this is simply not so.
Kissinger also claims that Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles, one of which is US recognition of the "one China" principle.
Maybe Kissinger & Associates deals with its China business interests based on this principle. But the US government does not.
In hearings before Congress, the Bush administration has been clear about the fact that the US has a "one China" policy and that this is distinct from China's "one China" principle. The US "one China" policy recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and states that any resolution of the Taiwan question must be resolved peacefully, by mutual agreement and, because Taiwan is a democracy, with the consent of the people of Taiwan.
The US is agnostic on the sovereignty question, deeming it to be unresolved. The "one China" principle is China's formulation and reflects the earlier statement by Kissinger of "recognition" of the Chinese claim that Taiwan is part of China.
US President George W. Bush may have said in private conversations with Chinese officials that he opposes Taiwan's independence. The Chinese press has certainly reported this as if it were fact. But the State Department has adamantly said that the US position on this issue has not changed, namely that the US does not support Taiwan's independence.
Read the Kissinger transcripts of his conversations with former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) and Mao Zedong (毛澤東) in 1971 and you will see that Kissinger dearly wanted to close a deal, and was willing to give private assurances to the Chinese leaders about Taiwan that went far beyond the text of the communique.
But private assurances are not policy, and Kissinger's attempt to rewrite US policy in his opinion piece does nothing to enhance the peaceful resolution of cross-strait tension.
Michael Fonte
Democratic Progressive Party liaison 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