Following criticism from several US officials on Taiwan's UN referendum, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed her opposition recently, calling it a provocative policy.
On the surface, as Rice reaffirmed, the US has "a one China policy and we do not support independence for Taiwan." But, in fact, the US is currying favor with China.
This brings to mind what former US secretary of state John Dulles said at the signing ceremony of the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China (ROC) in 1954. Taiwan and Penghu had not been put on the international bargaining table, and, because of the lack of a treaty, some had the impression that the US was using Taiwan as a bargaining chip in exchange for Chinese concessions. But the treaty showed Washington would not sell out Taiwan.
Unfortunately, in February 1972, then US president Richard Nixon made a deal with China and sold out Taiwan, even though the treaty had not been terminated, settling on a "one China" policy with then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來). Nixon also said that Taiwan was a part of China, and claimed that this was based on the Cairo Declaration.
Before the Korean War, US president Harry Truman and secretary of state Dean Acheson also said that Taiwan should be returned to China based on the Cairo Declaration under the "one China" policy, and in so doing used Taiwan as a bargaining chip.
Truman did not abandon this policy until the Korean War started in June 1950. He then changed his tone by saying that Taiwan's status was undecided, and that it should be determined by either the UN or in the peace treaty signed with Japan in 1951 in San Francisco.
The problem was that between the signing of the peace treaty and the review of the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report in which it was confirmed that the US, the UK and the ROC agreed that the Cairo Conference restored Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC. As the report clearly states: "At the Cairo Conference in 1943, [US] President [Franklin] Roosevelt, [British] Prime Minister [Winston] Churchill, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (
Hence, when the US Department of Justice described Taiwan-US relations to a district court in Washington on April 5 this year, officials said that, based on the report, "prior to 1979, it was the policy of the United States that the ROC included Taiwan."
But what about after 1979, when the US and the ROC severed ties?
According to the implications of this passage, as well as US recognition of the People's Republic of China (PRC), the PRC includes Taiwan. Based on this logic, the Taiwan desk at the US Department of State said in June: "The sovereignty of Taiwan is a question to be decided peacefully by the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait."
So, the people of Taiwan cannot make the decision on their own. This neatly sums up the nation's predicament.
The Cairo Declaration was merely a press release, and not signed by anyone.
Roosevelt and Churchill objected to the return of Taiwan and Penghu to China, while Roosevelt even requested that China follow the Atlantic Charter so that Taiwan could declare independence and opt for self-determination if it wanted to.
Today, having bought the lies from Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Sim Kiantek is a former associate professor in the Department of Business Administration at National Chung Hsing University.
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
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