US President Barack Obama takes a low-key approach toward China and is often humiliated by Beijing. As Obama is about to step down, he has embarrassed himself yet again by echoing Beijing’s “one China” policy this month.
Obama got only one thing right at his year-end news conference when he said that “it should be not just the prerogative, but the obligation of a new president to examine everything that’s been done and see what makes sense and what doesn’t.”
However, his other statements were absurd, as he claimed that there has been a longstanding agreement between Taiwan, the US and China that it is okay for Taiwan to be “able to function with some degree of autonomy.”
SOVEREIGNTY
Taiwan is a nation established through democratic self-determination that has transformed itself into a sovereign state, and it insists on maintaining its sovereign national status. Although the US does not give official recognition to Taiwan’s status as a nation, Taiwan has never “agreed” to function with only “some degree of autonomy” within the Chinese framework.
The US definition of “one China” differs from China’s definition of “one China.” The US demands that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait refrain from any unilateral changes to the “status quo,” so Taiwan has agreed to a humiliating compromise by defining the “status quo” as meaning that Taiwan is a “sovereign state,” and continues to hope that the US and other countries will recognize this “status quo.”
However, whether or not to recognize this “status quo” is a political issue. As US president-elect Donald Trump commented during a TV interview, the US does not need China “dictating” to it.
Obama said that “Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they’re able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy, they won’t charge forward and declare independence.”
This statement is seriously flawed and does not represent the position of Taiwanese or the government.
The majority of Taiwanese actually see the nation as an independent state, so there is no need for a declaration of independence, and there is certainly no need to beg China for “some degree of autonomy.”
If the US were to recognize Taiwan’s national status, there would be even less need for the nation to “declare independence.”
According to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was signed in 1951 under the direction of the US and took effect in 1952, the sovereignty of Taiwan remains “undecided.”
Then-US president Richard Nixon tried to maintain official relations with the governments of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and then-Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東), and the administration of then-US president Jimmy Carter never prohibited US officials from contacting their Taiwanese counterparts even after it announced that it was establishing diplomatic relations with China in 1979.
Unfortunately, the US administrations that have come after Carter have paid blind obedience to China, as the issue is “extremely sensitive” to Beijing. Those US presidents have restrained themselves on Taiwan policy and abandoned the stance that democratic leaders should take.
MISINTERPRETATION
China has come to take US self-restraint for granted, but it has ignored any restrictions it deems unfavorable to it.
Even Obama misinterprets this shameful Taiwan policy, which only goes to show that Trump does have a point.
After Trump and his administration take office, they should review the US’ “one China” policy and adjust the outdated approach that is becoming increasingly divorced from reality.
James Wang is a senior journalist.
Translated by Eddy Chang
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS