The Taiwan Strait, separating Taiwan from China and connecting the South China Sea to the East China Sea, has been the scene of three confrontations between the two nations — in 1953-1954, 1958 and 1995-1996 — in which the US thwarted China’s aggressive behavior. As China continues its efforts to annex Taiwan to obtain a base to open the gateway to the Pacific Ocean, the potential for a confrontation between China and the US cannot be overlooked, if the free world considers keeping Taiwan on its side as beneficial to its interests.
There are several reasons behind China’s desire to annex Taiwan. Two of these are as follows:
Geographically, Taiwan’s strategic location in the first island chain could serve as a springboard for China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower, as put forth in a book published last year by Michael Pillsbury.
Politically, Taiwan’s democratic system and free society, serving as a beacon to many Chinese eagerly waiting for democracy and freedom, is a threat to the Chinese Communist Party’s one-party rule. Chinese leaders are mostly the so-called “red second generation,” who believe they deserve to rule the People’s Republic of China (PRC) created by their fathers, and to do that, they have to maintain the autocratic one-party rule and turn off Taiwan’s democratic beacon.
Aiding China’s effort has been the recent weakening of moral power in world politics. Worrying about offending an emerging superpower and risking a relationship that brings economic and other benefits often keeps nations from promoting justice. The absence of voices supporting Taiwan constitutes tacit approval for China to continue its bullying behavior over the Taiwan Strait. Inaction by the Allied Powers over Taiwan’s future in the 63 years since they signed the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951 laid the foundation for this pattern of behavior by the PRC.
Article 2 of the treaty states: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores [Penghu],” without specifying to whom the sovereignty over Taiwan would be transferred.
Article 23 states: “The present Treaty shall be ratified by the States which signed it … including the United States of America as the principal occupying power.”
In the “Memorandum on Formosa, June 14, 1950,” US General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, said: “From a moral standpoint, the US should let the Taiwanese people develop their own future without the control of the communist country.”
MacArthur did have a view on the moral issue. Unfortunately, 63 years has passed and the US’ official position on Taiwan is still that “Taiwan’s status is undetermined.”
In 2009, a circuit judge for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit described Taiwan’s situation as: “America’s and China’s tumultuous relationship over the past 60 years has trapped the inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory.”
Feeling like international orphans, many Taiwanese joined the movement to make Taiwan a neutral nation, in search of a state in which citizens could live with security and dignity.
Moral initiative can move the society to a higher level of civilization. Moral power can create synergy; when it is first introduced, some people might resist, but as time goes by and the reasons are explained, people tend to accept it or cease to resist.
Now is the time for the international community to do something based on moral principles to reduce tensions across the Taiwan Strait and compensate for 63 years of inaction. They can do this by having all the 48 treaty signatory nations perform two tasks: First, jointly create an opportunity for Taiwanese to decide their own future in a national plebiscite; and second, have each country individually establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan. This idea might be viewed as brash and likely to increase tensions over Taiwan, but closer examination suggests that would not necessarily be the ultimate outcome.
It could be said that it is the moral — and possibly legal — responsibility of all 48 signatory nations, particularly the US as the principal occupying power, to finalize a task left incomplete from the post-World War II era.
Treating the two tasks as moral initiatives by the signatory nations could conceivably reduce or prevent intervention and retaliation by China.
Now is a good time to create an opportunity for Taiwanese to decide their own future, as Taiwanese identity has recently risen to the highest point in the nation’s history.
This could, in turn, reduce the possibility of the process of a plebiscite about Taiwan’s status being manipulated by an unfriendly party. Of course, time is needed to clean up the injustices from the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) 60-year rule, to ensure the process would be free and without outsiders’ interference and intimidation.
The second task, involving each of the signatories establishing diplomatic relations with Taiwan, would require an act of even greater moral courage. There are 21 nations, as well as the Holy See, which have full diplomatic relations with Taiwan, seven of them being treaty signatory nations. Considering that Taiwan has been a de facto independent nation for more than 60 years, has played a positive role in the international community and possesses potential to contribute to it, the nation deserves to be recognized as a member of the international community.
In the past, China severed diplomatic relations with any nation that established diplomatic relations with Taiwan. However, if the above process was carried out in a collective effort, China would have to carefully weigh the costs of retaliation.
Would China want to lose economic and other benefits derived from relations with so many nations because they recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation? Or could China be forced to swallow its pride and accept reality? Conceivably, this could be an opportunity to nudge China into behaving as a more responsible and cooperative member of the international community. Are the signatory nations likely to do all of this? Probably not, but it does no harm to prick their consciences.
A collective moral act would not only finally bring justice to Taiwan, but could also be a viable solution, in the long run, to reduce tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
Lee Shyu-tu is a member of the North America Taiwanese Professors’ Association.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath