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.
The news from General Christopher C. LaNeve, Vice Chief of Staff of the US Army, last month was a low-key 46 pages, but one sentence was arresting: the US Army will “organize, train, and equip against the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) — the ‘pacing threat’ — with the same institutional focus that the Cold War generations brought to the Soviet Army.” Ouch! The sentence was in an unclassified document entitled “How The Army Fights,” and billed as “Operational Warfighting Guidance” for the Army; it is comprehensive and “multi-domain”; it covers the globe. Despite its breadth, there was no mistaking its focus
Upon entering Taipei Railway Station, what greets us at the interchange of Taiwan’s three major rail systems are not testimonies to the city’s technological development or cultural heritage, but an inescapable barrage of cosmetic surgery and aesthetic medicine advertisements. Advertising itself has always been more than commercial activity; it is a manifestation of the collective unconscious. When the entranceway of the nation is lined with legions of cookie-cutter perfect faces and plastic surgery adverts, it both reveals and provokes society’s collective body-image anxiety. From a psychological perspective, these advertisements are an exercise in social conditioning of the public. They do
Diplomats are paid to say unpleasant things pleasantly. Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Jing Quan (井泉) has managed the opposite. Asked on Oct. 15 about Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro Jr’s description of China as the region’s lone troublemaker, he called the remark nonsense, then observed that China “may easily win” against the Philippines, but declines to use force because it loves peace. A threat dressed as a compliment is still a threat, and Manila heard it correctly. Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Maria Theresa Lazaro on Monday last week summoned Jing to express her concerns about the
A televised debate for the main Kaohsiung mayoral candidates, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Lai Jui-lung (賴瑞隆) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ko Chih-en (柯志恩), was held on Friday evening, followed at noon yesterday by a debate in Taipei between Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) of the KMT and the DPP’s candidate, Legislator Puma Shen (沈伯洋). Chiang and Lai have had local government experience to rely on: Shen and Ko needed to demonstrate that they have the vision and the leadership skills needed for the job. In Taipei, Chiang has the advantage of seeking a second term in a
RSS