On April 12 and 13, US President Barack Obama’s administration is convening a nuclear security summit in Washington. This is an important event with potential to make the world a safer place. Only days ago, it was announced that Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) would also attend the summit.
After the turnaround in China’s position — it had earlier indicated little interest in attending the summit with a high-level delegation — Obama had a lengthy telephone conversation with Hu. The call took place on April 1, when Obama’s plane had just landed at Andrews Air Force Base after a fundraising trip to New England.
News reports of the event said that the discussion covered the Iranian nuclear dispute, and “China’s demands over Tibet and Taiwan.” News reports also quoted Hu as saying that “the Taiwan and Tibet issues are key to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and relate to China’s core interests.”
We do not know what Obama’s response was to these “concerns” expressed by Hu, but we hope he avoided the confusing reiterations of the US’ “one China” policy given by US officials since former US president Bill Clinton’s infamous “three noes” in Shanghai in 1998.
All too often “one China” is interpreted as meaning that Taiwan is part of China. This is not the US position, nor that of the European nations. Yes, we have a “one China” policy, but this simply means that we only recognize one government — the one in Beijing — as the government of China. As far as Taiwan is concerned, the US position is that its future should be determined peacefully — in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act — and with the assent of the people of Taiwan.
We also hope that Obama avoided acknowledging Taiwan as being related to China’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity.” This term unfortunately found its way into the US-China Joint Statement at the end of Obama’s visit to Beijing in November last year. The US side subsequently clarified its position, explaining that the term only related to the status of Tibet and Xinjiang (East Turkestan), and not to Taiwan. For their part, the Chinese grabbed their chance and emphasized time and again that it did relate to Taiwan, and that this was one of China’s “core interests.”
Against that background, it is essential that the Obama administration make it clear to China that a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue is a core interest of the US.
In fact, this is the basic essence of a law passed by the US Congress in 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act. And since we support the principle of democracy, we should also emphasize that such a resolution can only be successful if it is in full agreement with the democratic wishes of the people of Taiwan.
It is evident that China is a rising power. However, it is a power that eschews the principles of democracy for which we stand, and flagrantly violates those principles in its dealings with Tibet and East Turkestan. While we may need China in order to help resolve major global issues like nuclear proliferation or global warming, we need to make sure that China’s cooperation does not come at the cost of Taiwan’s future as a free and democratic nation, or at the cost of democracy in general.
In other words: We should not use Taiwan as a pawn on the chessboard of world affairs. The Taiwanese have worked hard to achieve their democracy. It is essential that Obama makes it crystal clear to Hu that Taiwan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity should not be infringed upon in any way, so that the people of Taiwan can make a free decision on their future.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS