In UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, the UN decided “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China [PRC] and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.” The “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” were of course the representatives of the Republic of China (ROC), so some people say that the whole incident had nothing to do with Taiwan, and that Taiwan and Taiwanese need not concern themselves about it.
However, Ministry of Foreign Affairs files record that on April 28, 1971, then-US State Department press secretary Charles Bray dropped a bombshell by saying, on the one hand, that sovereignty over Taiwan and the Penghu Islands was an unsettled question, and, on the other hand, the dispute should be resolved through peaceful negotiations between the ROC and the PRC.
A quick-witted reporter at the press conference picked up on this point by asking which of the two was the legal government of China. When Bray failed to give a straight answer, the reporter asked whether calling for the two Chinese governments to negotiate a solution to the Taiwan question was not tantamount to recognizing that sovereignty over Taiwan belonged to China and that the US didn’t want to intervene in a dispute between the two Chinas, both of which claimed sovereignty over Taiwan.
Unable to field these tricky questions, Bray simply stated that US governments had maintained a consistent stance on the issue and that the things he had said did not represent new policies. However, that very afternoon Bray called a second press conference to explain those items that had not been adequately covered in the morning. Bray said that the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation were just statements of the Allied powers’ intention that Taiwan would be returned to China, but that this objective had not been formally carried out in the peace treaties signed with Japan or any other agreement.
In 1971, the US was preparing to support the PRC’s admission as a member of the UN, and this naturally gave rise to the question of what was to be done about the ROC or Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. Considering that the US wanted to avoid the idea of an independent Taiwan and that Chiang didn’t want there to be “two Chinas,” surely the US wasn’t going to let Taiwan and Penghu be incorporated into the PRC.
Of course, the US would not have been happy to see that happen, so it is not surprising that Bray’s suggestion about peaceful negotiations was quickly snuffed out by then-US president Richard Nixon, who called it completely unrealistic.
One thing that is quite clear is that as soon as the ROC lost the right to represent China, the PRC became China’s only representative. That being the case, if Taiwan and Penghu were confirmed as belonging to China, where was the ROC supposed to go? That is why, when the Korean War broke out in 1950, then-US president Harry Truman had declared that Taiwan’s status was undetermined, and this remained as the essential rationale for maintaining a state of division across the Taiwan Strait until 1971.
Four decades have passed since then and the issue has still not been resolved on an international level and according to the law.
Former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) model of a special state-to-state relationship across the Taiwan Strait and the Democratic Progressive Party’s notion of “effective self-determination” based on the reality of Taiwan’s democratic elections are ideas by which Taiwan may continue to survive.
In contrast, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) adherence to the so-called “1992 consensus” is a step backward that would take us back to a “one China” framework. If Taiwan goes on down that road, it is sure to perish.
Chen Yi-shen is a former chairman of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
On Thursday last week, the Philippines and Japan issued a joint statement on their Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, reaffirming the need to further promote peace, stability and mutual trust through maritime cooperation grounded in respect for international law. They also announced the commencement of formal negotiations on the delimitation of their respective exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and continental shelves, to be conducted in accordance with international law — particularly the relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — and with reference to relevant international judicial precedents, with the aim of enhancing legal certainty in the
RSS