Taiwan's intention to hold a referendum to decide on whether or not to apply for UN membership has attracted the criticism of US government officials. First an official from the US Department of State said he was against the move, saying such a referendum would be an attempt to change the "status quo." Then US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who is in charge of cross-strait relations, said if Taiwan were to hold a referendum on UN membership it would be a step toward a declaration of independence.
More recently, Dennis Wilder, the senior director of East Asian Affairs on the US' National Security Council said: "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the US government is that the ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided, that it has been left undecided ... for many, many years."
We need to understand why the US is, at this point, publicly criticizing Taiwan's referendum and the "Republic of China" in this way.
The US' position on Taiwan has, in fact, never changed. Ever since the Korean War, it has maintained that Taiwan's status is undetermined. Then, in 1971, former US national security adviser Henry Kissinger promised then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (
On March 8, 1972, former US secretary of state William Rogers sent former US president Richard Nixon a memorandum about the US' Taiwan policy, which said in order to avoid Taiwan becoming an obstacle in relations between the US and the People's Republic of China (PRC), the US should "[avoid] legalistic formulations whenever possible regarding the status of Taiwan, and speak increasingly of the PRC as China and the ROC as `Taiwan.'"
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), written by the US Department of State and the US Congress, is based on these ideas.
It is very unusual for the US to use its own national law as a basis for its relations with another country that is not part of US territory, and such conduct has rarely been seen internationally.
The TRA says the US is to sell weapons to Taiwan and protect it from invasion by other countries, economic blockades and other threats. The TRA gives the impression that Taiwan has become a "protectorate" of the US, except the US has never used that term. Because Taiwan has done its best to maintain good relations with the US, for its own protection, for a long time the relationship between the two countries was on the basis that Taiwan depended on the US, and the US protected Taiwan, and this was never discussed or criticized.
Then the situation began to deteriorate for Taiwan, as China started to put pressure on it's foreign relations. As the number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with Taipei declined, it became less influential in the international arena.
Previously, relations between Taipei and Washington had been based the Chiang Kai-shek (
This US view was similar to China's notion of the "status quo," but not entirely identical, as China was adamant that Taiwan would not be allowed to become independent. The US and China came to a compromise and agreed on the term "Taiwan cannot become independent."
Now the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government wants to hold a referendum on joining international organizations using the name "Taiwan," in an effort to push to make the nation a "normal country." This development is making both the US and China nervous. Taipei is under siege, and the US has become a spokesman for China.
The US' position that "the ROC is an issue undecided" is interpreted differently by different Taiwanese political parties. For example, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) says the ROC is still an existing country. It is possible for the international community not to recognize its government, but a country doesn't stop existing when its government is not recognized. DPP supporters, on the other hand, say the US' position is just fine. The DPP is working hard to eradicate political symbols that are connected with the ROC, including the country's name, so they can accept the US saying "the ROC is an issue undecided." China says in 1979 the US recognized the PRC and stopped recognizing the ROC, so the ROC is an issue that has already been resolved. They cannot understand how the US can say the "ROC is an issue undecided."
What did Wilder mean? The Taiwan that the TRA promises to help protect is a Taiwan under ROC rule. The party the US wants to have dealings with is the government of the ROC, not a "Taiwan" government. From the point of view of US law, "Taiwan" is another term for "ROC," and these two are one and the same. Since the US does not recognize Taiwan as a country, and also calls the existence of the ROC into question, then what is the legal nature of the identity the US wants to have dealings with?
In the past, US officials could hide behind creative ambiguity. But now the situation in Taiwan has changed. There is a bigger push for independence and national sovereignty and a desire to have the respect of the international community. Taipei has run out of patience with the creative ambiguity of the past, and it demands the US respect the will of the Taiwanese. Unfortunately, faced with this new situation US officials still react within the old framework, a framework that nobody in Taiwan can identify with. The current situation was therefore unavoidable.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at Tamkang University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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