The controversy over Taiwan's UN bid caused US National Security Council senior director for East Asian affairs Dennis Wilder to say in late August that "Taiwan, or the Republic of China [ROC], is not at this point a state in the international community."
Conversely, Washington also said it did not accept the UN's view that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Both moves created quite a stir.
But the claim made by some political commentators in Taiwan that this marked the first time the US had objected to the claim that Taiwan is part of the PRC is a misleading one.
Even after the US severed diplomatic ties with Taipei, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) underscored Washington's denial of the PRC's claim. Former US president Ronald Reagan's "Six Assurances," delivered in person by US representative to Taiwan James Lilly to president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) on July 14, 1982, before the signing of the US-PRC Joint Communique on Arms Sales, clearly stated that the US does not support Chinese claims of sovereignty over Taiwan.
On Oct. 3, the Heritage Foundation, a US-based conservative think tank, held a seminar in Washington titled "President Reagan's Six Assurances to Taiwan and their Meaning Today." Former Control Yuan president Fredrick Chien (
Sources say that former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific Kurt Campbell and former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Richard Bush also support Schriver's proposal.
In his article, Schriver points out that calls from Taiwanese officials for Washington to reaffirm its six assurances are not very useful as the situation has changed drastically in the last 25 years. Over the past three years in particular, "trust between the US and Taiwan has weakened. Thus, there is a need today for a strong, clear statement from a senior US official that will move us toward genuine reassurance," Schriver wrote.
Schriver's six assurances no longer refer to the issue of US arms sales to Taiwan.
Assurances that remain from the past include the position that the US would not pressure Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the PRC and that the US will always honor the TRA. Some relatively fresh points include the fifth assurance, which stipulates that "Under no circumstances will the US seek to curry favor with China by making sacrifices in its relationship with Taiwan ... The US will not agree to `co-manage' the issue of Taiwan with the PRC" and the sixth assurance, which says that "The US will seek to promote opportunities for Taiwan to participate meaningfully in international organizations."
The fourth assurance, however, is confusing, as it states that "The US will not formally recognize the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan."
Does this mean Washington would grant informal recognition to PRC sovereignty over Taiwan? The same assurance also states that "Issues related to the sovereignty of Taiwan are for the people of the PRC and the people of Taiwan to decide peacefully themselves."
Although Schriver's intentions are good, his fourth assurance seems to be a major step backward.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica's Institute of Modern History.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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
RSS