Taiwan suffers constantly at the hands of lazy journalists and politicians. This is especially evident regarding the China problem and the triangular relations between Taiwan, China and the US, and the phrase "one China."
Few journalists or politicians take the time to try to understand things like the 1972 Shanghai Communique and subsequent US statements. Even fewer have the courage to say what is really there. Does that make them "useful idiots?" Perhaps, but I prefer to simply use the phrase "lazy journalists and politicians."
This is what happens around the world, in organizations like the WHO and what happened in Irvine, California. Irvine's politicians and its mayor, eager to make a quick deal and some fast bucks, readily accepted the "one China" position of the People's Republic of China (PRC). They intentionally or unknowingly acted as if the PRC version of "one China" was the same as that of the US. They then tried to pass it off as official. Lazy, collaborative or downright deceptive, you can make the call.
The PRC of course is always asking the US to repeat the Shanghai Communique's commitment, hoping that somehow, sometime, someone will be stupid, drunk or lazy enough to make a slip of the tongue, use the wrong phrase, so that Beijing can say the US has changed its policy. Former US president Bill Clinton slipped up once with his three noes, but not irrevocably. It did not become policy. Lazy journalists, however. slip up all the time and this is what makes it bad for Taiwan.
In item 11 of the Shanghai Communique the Chinese side reaffirmed its position: It opposes "one China, one Taiwan," "one China, two governments," "two Chinas," an "independent Taiwan," or any activities that advocate that "the status of Taiwan remains to be determined."
In item 12 , the US declared its position: "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position."
At that time, Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) regime controlled Taiwan and thought that the "one China" belonged to them, while Beijing thought that the "one China" belonged to them. The US did not state who it thought was the "sole legal government" was, but it kept its embassy in Taipei.
The crucial wording, however, is what followed -- that the US government "does not challenge that position." To not challenge something does not mean that one endorses it or rejects it, one simply does not challenge it. If two sides agree to disagree, then the points where they disagree are not going to be contested or challenged; they have already agreed to disagree.
When the US prepared to transfer its embassy from Taipei to Beijing in January 1979, a joint communique was released on Dec. 15, 1978. Item 2 stated: "The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan." In the eyes of the US, Chiang's government had lost its claim to be the government of "one China."
The kicker in that second communique came in Item 7. "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." However, the US did not commit to what one China was.
The wording "acknowledges the Chinese position" is crucial. It is an acknowledgement; it is neither an endorsement nor a rejection. Both sides have continued to agree to disagree. In reality, the US has purposely avoided spelling out its position. What it has endorsed is that it wants the whole matter to be settled peacefully. The subsequent Taiwan Relations Act went into more detail on this.
Lazy journalists cue off of this ambiguity and simply state that the US has a "one China" policy when in reality it has a policy of acknowledging that Beijing has a position on this matter.
A legal reason why the US may remain vague on the "one China" issue and Taiwan is implied by Frank Chiang (江永芳), a professor at Fordham Law School, in his recent article ("Taiwan is an abandoned territory," Aug. 10, page 8). He explains: "Taiwan is currently an abandoned territory of Japan, over which no country has a legitimate claim. The US cannot claim title to the island of Taiwan unless the people of Taiwan, as the collective owners of the island, request the US to take the island." He concludes, that Taiwan's future is its choice and no one else's.
Another clear example of lazy journalism is the one-sided phrases used in reporting on cross-strait issues. Who has not heard newscasters like CNN's Mike Chinoy and others prattling on about China? When Taiwan is mentioned, the stock phrase appears: "Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province." Fair game, for that is what China considers Taiwan. Unfortunately, these journalists never say what Taiwan thinks of China.
Wouldn't it be fair to respond in the same vein every time these journalists speak of the PRC? They could add a similar stock phrase such as, "the People's Republic of China, which Taiwan considers a grasping, corrupt totalitarian state ruled by control freaks with a warped sense of history." A bit long, but you get the idea. It is time reporters got off their duffs and started giving both sides of the story. It is time they gave Taiwan a fair shake.
If, like an independent, democratic sovereign state, Taiwan taxes its citizens, has defined boundaries, elects its officials and has a standing army, then it is an independent, democratic sovereign state. Are there any reporters or politicians out there with courage enough to say it?
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
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