The "one China" policy is a tool that is being used to suppress Taiwan's aspirations for formal sovereignty, as well as its democracy. Unfortunately, the US government has often "assisted" at the most inopportune times.
For instance, late last year, the Taiwanese people were wary enough to install a pro-China pan-blue majority in the Legislative Yuan -- a result for which the US government's untimely anti-sovereignty remarks were at least partially responsible. Now, the US wants these pro-China legislators to let the China-deterring arms procurement bill pass -- an irony only Beijing would appreciate. However, for the US, this might be the first taste of how the "one China" policy can come in conflict with US strategic interests.
To be sure, the arms bill could still be passed eventually, but not on account of US pressure. Rather, it would be the pan-blue camp's utmost desire to regain control of the government so it could compel legislators to try to mollify Taiwanese voters.
As a pre-presidential election strategy, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will try to delude the public into believing that it cares about Taiwan's security. The KMT leadership is fully aware that the process of arms purchase takes years and will be controlled by the government that takes power in 2008.
The procurement plan could then be "revised" and the pan-blue camp's "grand" scheme of disarming Taiwan would proceed unmolested, if the KMT were to regain power. That's why the bill is destined to drag on as close to the presidential election as possible.
The public can expect to be fed a stream of lame excuses by the KMT in the coming months.
It's essential to understand that Taiwan's unilateral disarmament is the pan-blue camp leaders' "oath of loyalty" to join up with Beijing.
Meanwhile, these leaders in concert with Taiwan's pro-China media have been preaching to the people the impossibility of Taiwan's independence. Invariably they use the US' "one China" policy to back up their claims. At the same time, they are relentlessly planting the seeds of inevitability for "unification" instead.
Up until recently, positive factors, such as Taiwanese consciousness and identity, and the desirability of democracy and liberty, have dwarfed all of the negative ones. In fact, opinion polls showing how overwhelmingly the Taiwanese people are against "unification" -- have often been cited as evidence of the impossibility of Taiwan ever succumbing to China.
But, pan-blue camp leaders' incessant exploitation of the US' "one China" policy -- which reached a crescendo when former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
In other words, while Taiwan should be on high alert to guard against "unification by stealth," the Taiwanese people might be dangerously close to their most apathetic. Should the collaboration of pan-blue camp leaders with Beijing succeed in bringing about a takeover by stealth of Taiwan by China, the US' "one China" policy would have at least contributed in terms of creating an amicable environment. In light of this, the US government's standard practice of "hands off Taiwan-China discussions, as well as resolution of Taiwan's status as long as no violence is involved" appears to be unrealistic and deserves a thorough review.
Unfortunately, the "one China" policy also tends to discourage the US from educating its own people -- both government officials and the public alike -- ? to the fact that Taiwan is too important to the US to allow it to become part of China.
Therefore, the key to warding off the looming "unification by stealth" calamity -- as well as helping relieve the ongoing difficulties regarding arms purchases -- might be the US' open acknowledgement of Taiwan's long-term, vital strategic value. It would surprise few people if the US government then proceeded to recognize the need for changing or at least tweaking the "one China" policy. This could be done to safeguard against any form of "unification by stealth." Perhaps the US would also commit to formally recognizing the sovereign state of Taiwan in case of a Chinese attack, or in case a "unification" without the consent of the Taiwanese people is deemed unavoidable without this recognition.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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