If there is an example of untrue and ungrateful friends, it is that provided by the late US president Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) supported all the actions of the US while the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) backed none, both Nixon and Kissinger helped to push Taiwan not just out of the UN Security Council, but the UN as well.
Had Washington, London, Paris and Tokyo shown the moral courage at that time to insist on the recognition of Taiwan as an entity separate from that controlled by the CCP, there is no doubt that Beijing would have been practical enough to accept the ground reality of two states, which is the situation across the Taiwan Strait.
The fact is that the KMT never signed a surrender document or a peace treaty with the CCP that conceded that they were defeated. This means that in international law, both the CCP and the KMT were equal in 1949 ,and therefore by extension, the two entities -- the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan -- were also legally equal.
It is because of the moral deficit in Washington, London, Paris and Tokyo that Taipei is repeatedly being humiliated in international forums instead of being regarded as an equal partner. Unlike these four capitals, which reduced their support for Taiwan from 1949 to 1979, India has increased its presence, and today has the same relations with Taipei as the Western states that pushed Taiwan into a corner 30 years ago in their eagerness to please the CCP.
The KMT was a friend of Indian independence. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek (蔣介石) backed full freedom for India, even when Winston Churchill was Britain's prime minister and claimed that Indians were racially inferior and unfit for independence. As the KMT went across the Taiwan Strait legally undefeated in 1949 and set up a government there, the legally-elected administration in Taipei headed by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has the same legal rights and authority as his KMT predecessors had.
In the spirit of the creation of reconciliation between the two legally equal entities across the Strait, it is suggested that an extension of the PRC's late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping's (鄧小平)"one country, two systems" formula be implemented. This is the concept of "one nation, two states," that holds that while both Taiwan and the PRC belong to the same Chinese nation, they are separate and equal states.
It took Europe centuries of bloody conflict as well as the colonization of other peoples before the continent settled down to both internal as well as international co-existence. Asia needs to avoid repeating this history. By 2015, an Asian Union that is modelled on the EU should become a reality. The different powers in Asia should take the use of force off the table while dealing with disputes concerning one another.
For such a situation to come about, good relations between the PRC and the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC) are a necessity. Tension between the two -- not to speak of the worst-case scenario of conflict -- would severely retard prospects in Asia, and may make the "Asian Century" stillborn. This would be a calamity.
Two years ago, at back-to-back conferences in Hong Kong and Taipei, I stressed the need for a peaceful settlement of disputes,especially across the Strait. India has a vital interest in such a resolution, because the region has become a vital trading partner of New Delhi, besides long-standing cultural and historical ties exist.
Hence it would not be out of place for an analyst from India to attempt to contribute a solution to the "Gordian Knot" of Beijing-Taipei relations. The mechanism suggested is an extension of the strategy of one of the greatest minds in history, Deng, who came up with the concept of "one country, two systems" for Hong Kong.
Today, despite complaints from those wishing to see more rapid political development in Hong Kong, it has a degree of autonomy and a character unlike that of any Chinese province.
There have been numerous suggestions that the "one country two systems" principle should be adopted in the cross-strait dispute. However, the reality is that Taiwan is not a province, it is a state.
Hence it is my suggestion that "Deng thought" be extended to cover the principle of "one nation, two states." This formula means that while there would be a single Chinese nation, this would be divided into two states,the PRC and Taiwan, both of which would have equal standing in international law, and the same degree of internal control and superintendence over external relations.
Should an agreement be reached on this basis, then the PRC would recognize the right of Taiwan to have its own system of government, flag, armed forces, external relations, financial freedom and other attributes of a state, such as its own currency and postal service.
The PRC would withdraw its objection to Taiwan joining the UN and to sending diplomatic representatives abroad,while Taipei would -- as part of the agreement -- join with Beijing in guaranteeing non-violence as the principle of relations between the two states, each of whom would agree that they belong to a single Chinese nation.
Such a development would make the formation of an Asian NATO unnecessary. Otherwise, if the present cross-strait tension continues, a security alliance to protect Taiwan from attack will inevitably be created, as neither Japan, the EU or the US can strategically accept the merger of the island with the PRC.
Of course, it would be clear that by accepting "one nation, two states," the Taiwanese do not accept that they are all Han, especially in view of the fact that research shows close ethnic links between Polynesian communities and the bulk of the inhabitants of Taiwan.
Once it is accepted that both states are two sides of the same nation, albeit entirely separate in the exercise of governmental power, then the way would be cleared for an immense expansion of contacts between the two sides. Both can sign an "open skies" agreement that would give the other's carriers landing rights in each other's territory. While business contacts have been transparent, other links have perforce had to be more secretive.This is not to the benefit of either state.
In particular, Taiwan has evolved into one of the strongest economies in the world. The Taiwanese people have fashioned a vigorous democracy that has helped put their nation at the cutting edge of technological innovation. It is a travesty of both justice as well as ground realities to bar Taipei from regional groupings and conferences and the UN.
By the agreement detailed above, Beijing would accept that Taipei is as much of a "state" as it itself is, and would thereafter dismantle the barriers preventing Taiwan from full participation in regional and international forums and debate. In view of the fact that the KMT was not legally defeated in 1949, this is the only legal path to peace between the two entities.
As the example of Iraq has shown, it is not enough to occupy a country unless the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants welcome such an event. Should the PRC invade and occupy Taiwan by force, the bloodshed would dwarf the suffering unleashed on Taiwanese in 1949, when the KMT army made the island its home.
Unless hearts and minds are won over, the mere possession of territory becomes a negative as is being seen in Iraq, where British and US forces are generating hostility within a populace that sees them as alien invaders.
To capture Taiwan in such a manner would be to permanently destroy the goodwill for China and Chinese culture and civilization that is still plentiful in the island. Thus, war is not a winning option for China in Taiwan.
The psychological damage caused by conflict to the goodwill shown by Taiwanese to the PRC is apart from the international costs of such a war. Even in the unlikely event of the US and Japan not joining hands to repel a military attack on Taiwan, the PRC would certainly face economic sanctions and boycotts that would cripple its economy.
Within China, Taiwanese enterprises are high-productivity islands. Should there be a conflict, many such individuals are likely to relocate to the US, Canada and Australia. Very few would choose to remain behind in a China that would soon face the fury of the US and its allies, if not militarily, then certainly politically and economically. Any forced occupation of Taiwan would be a lose-lose situation for both Beijing and Taipei, even should the military operation conclude smoothly and speedily.
The present leadership in China has demonstrated a sophistication in its handling of the external environment that has replicated its success in economic policy. Certainly, it will have information that Taiwan now is very different from that of 1960, the period when the present policy of diplomatic containment and quarantine began. Thanks to the continuation of a stance that has lost its salience, China is beginning to miss out on several opportunities for synergy that close Beijing-Taipei links would bring about.
The pride of the Taiwanese people and their determination to chart their own course rather than get merged into the PRC is palpable to any visitor to Taiwan. The days when a small clique could take decisions on behalf of the future of Taiwan are over.
Just as there is unlikely to be a consensus within Taiwan in favor of risking a conflict by a unilateral declaration of independence, there is unlikely to be popular support within the PRC for a conflict in the absence of such a declaration.
After decades of turmoil and instability, the people living in the PRC would like to preserve the calm that the policies of Deng have gifted to them. They can be expected to welcome unorthodox measures to break the logjam over relations with Taiwan, where for years the immovable object of political integration into the PRC has been confronting the irresistible force created by the desire of the Taiwanese people for freedom to run their own lives.
Within Taiwan as well, except for a handful of visceral anti-China elements who would have no objection to the island being the "meat in the sandwich" between China and the US, the overwhelming majority of the people would welcome a rapprochement with China and cherish the benefits that this would bring.
Just as first former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have been unlikely peacemakers, history has given the present Taiwanese and the Chinese leadership the opportunity to have a historic reconciliation between the two states that together form the great Chinese nation. The time for implementing the formula of "one nation, two states" in the spirit of reconciliation between two equal entities has arrived.
M. D. Nalapat is a professor of geopolitics at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education in India.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs