Diplomacy depends on eloquence to promote the nation’s viewpoint and secure national interests, and that is why a mute can be engaged in many things, but not diplomacy. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration may not be mute, but they certainly do not know how to approach diplomacy.
In his recent visit to brief Taiwanese leaders on US President Barack Obama’s visit to China, American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt said Washington’s understanding was that respect for China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was related to the issue of Tibet and Xinjiang and had nothing to do with Taiwan.
Less than two days later, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Qin Gang (秦剛) responded that Taiwan was an inalienable part of China, and that the principle of respecting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity “of course applied to the issue of Taiwan.”
The US and China obviously had their own, separate interpretations of Obama’s and Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) joint statement. Regardless of whether Burghardt’s statement was truthful or favorable to Taiwan, the Chinese government did not hide its intent to annex Taiwan and eliminate the Republic of China. However, the Ma government has remained silent on this crucial matter.
Even though Burghardt reiterated the US’ position on its Taiwan policy, he is not a US government official by the US system’s definition. His interpretations of the joint statement were not as authoritative as comments made by US Department of State or White House officials.
Not only that, his statement is also quite far-fetched. In negotiations preceding the Three Sino-US Communiques, the issues of sovereignty and territory focused only on Taiwan and never touched upon Washington’s official recognition of Tibet or Xinjiang as part of Chinese territory. If Burghardt interpreted this as being a new US position on the cross-strait issue, then it would be better for the White House to issue an official statement.
There are many different terms used in connection with the Taiwan issue — including “sovereignty,” “legal status,” “international status,” and what the US Central Intelligence Agency called the “relationship between Taiwan and China.” But that Burghardt used the phrase “the political status of Taiwan” when speaking of the Three Communiques implied that Taiwan is part of Chinese internal politics — and that violates one of the six assurances proposed by former US president Ronald Reagan — that the US “would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.”
That Ma accepted the “one China” policy shows clearly that he does not think Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan is harmful to the nation. Nevertheless, Burghardt said that whether Taipei should engage in talks with Beijing depended on Taiwan. In other words, Taiwanese have the right as well as responsibility to prevent Ma from submitting to China at the expense of Taiwanese sovereignty.
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS