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
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS