The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) addresses two core principles: maintaining the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait and the independence of Taiwan. During a videoconference with journalists in Washington last week, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) expressed his dissatisfaction with the WHO in a manner that very much reflected the spirit of the TRA.
To support his argument, Chen quoted Section 4(d) of the TRA, which says that Taiwan should not be excluded or expelled from any international organization, and Section 2(b)(4), which says that China's use of non-peaceful means to determine the future of Taiwan is of grave concern to the US.
Despite this, at the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the US supported the "one China" policy and in general Washington did not seem overly concerned over China's "Anti-Secession" Law or its deployment of ballistic missiles targeting Taiwan.
Chen complained about US President George W. Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shirking responsibilities. He said they might try to defend themselves by saying that the US had helped Taiwan maintain its OIE membership -- under the name "Chinese Taipei" -- rather than be expelled. Furthermore, they could say that a majority of countries have reached a consensus on the "one China" principle and that therefore it is not the US' responsibility to change this reality.
But the crux of the matter is the national title "Republic of China" (ROC) and the sovereignty issue implicit in the claim that "Taiwan is part of China," which can only be resolved through the clauses in the TRA that promote Taiwanese independence.
Section 4(c) of the TRA stipulates that "... the Congress approves the continuation in force of all treaties and other international agreements, including multilateral conventions, entered into by the US and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the US as the ROC prior to January 1, 1979 ..." In other words, this means that all agreements signed prior to this date are re-approved and transferred to Taiwanese.
A little bit of research will show that these international agreements include the Atlantic Charter, the Declaration by the United Nations of 1942, articles 76(b) and 77(b) of the UN Charter and others, all of which, over and over again, recognize Taiwanese independence. The TRA therefore implies that supporting Taiwanese independence is a responsibility of the US. Unfortunately, this rarely gets mentioned, which has resulted in the US' position of not supporting Taiwanese independence, but rather recognizing the "one China" principle.
Furthermore, on Dec. 30, 1978, two days prior to Washington's severing diplomatic ties with Taipei, former US president Jimmy Carter pointed out in his memorandum that after cutting Taiwan-US relations, "the existing international agreements and arrangements in force between the US and Taiwan shall continue in force."
In other words, Carter decided that after severing diplomatic ties, the US would continue to have a state-to-state international relationship with Taiwan.
Bush cannot just ask Chen to uphold his "four noes and one without" pledge without upholding Carter's memorandum, which clearly states that Taiwan is a nation and not a province.
Clause 2, Article 6 of the US Constitution stipulates that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the US, shall be the supreme law of the land." If Chen were to bring forth the Taiwanese independence issue stipulated in the TRA, Bush would be seen to be acting unconstitutionally.
Sim Kiantek is a former associate professor in the business administration department at Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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