Back in the 1960s and 1970s the US and other Western nations tried to convince the Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) regime to accept “dual recognition” and thereby avoid expulsion from the UN. Even former US president George H.W. Bush, who served as US ambassador to the UN in the early 1970s, worked hard for this very rational resolution.
However, a recalcitrant Chiang foolishly rejected the option and thereby caused Taiwan to slide into international isolation. The present Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is making the same mistake: It is rejecting this formula in future relations with El Salvador, where Mauricio Fumes was recently elected president.
At present, El Salvador still has diplomatic ties with Taiwan, but these will evaporate quickly when Fumes’ new FMNL government comes to power on June 1 and he finds himself confronted with a dilemma to chose between Beijing and Taipei.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊) briefly saw the light on March 19, when in response to questions in the legislature he said that he would favor dual recognition. However, the next day the rug was pulled from under him by Ma, who said that dual recognition was “unrealistic” and that it “would create more problems than it would solve.”
Ma is apparently still relying on his “diplomatic truce” with China and clings to the wishful thinking that his rapprochement with Beijing will bring Taiwan international space. The fact of the matter is that Ma’s policies are driving Taiwan more and more into international diplomatic isolation — and into the arms of a repressive China.
Ma needs to realize that his approach is as detrimental to Taiwan’s international space as Chiang’s was four decades ago. If Taiwan wants to break out of the international isolation imposed on the nation by Beijing and the KMT and its heirs, then it needs to do some creative thinking.
History shows that if a people want their nation to be recognized internationally, they need to make their case to the international community. This is what my country, the Netherlands, did in the 16th century when it threw off the repressive yoke of the Spanish Empire. It is what the American settlers did in 1776 when they rejected the authoritarian rule of Britain’s King George III. It is what East Timor did when it rejected Indonesian rule.
It must be emphasized that in the 1960s and 1970s, the US and other Western nations did not break with the then KMT regime because it represented “Taiwan.” Diplomatic ties were severed because the KMT government still claimed to represent “all of China.” In view of the ascendance of the People’s Republic of China in the 1960s and 1970s, this had become an untenable position.
Adopting a “dual recognition” approach is still the most rational and reasonable approach. In fact it is the only solution that would guarantee Taiwan’s continued existence as a free and democratic nation.
This can be done peacefully by emphasizing to China that it is in its own interest to accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbor, instead of perpetuating the tail end of a Chinese Civil War in which the Taiwanese had no part. The end result would be very much like Canada and the US coexisting peacefully in spite of the hostility that existed at the foundation of the US when they took diverging paths.
At the same time, the West needs to break out of the stranglehold of the outmoded “one China” policy. It needs to move toward a concept that affirms Taiwan’s right to make a free and democratic decision on its future, and its right to be a full and equal member of the international community in accordance with the basic principle of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter.
Gerrit van der Wees is the editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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