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
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
When 17,000 troops from the US, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand spread across the Philippine archipelago for the Balikatan military exercise, running from tomorrow through May 8, the official language would be about interoperability, readiness and regional peace. However, the strategic subtext is becoming harder to ignore: The exercises are increasingly about the military geography around Taiwan. Balikatan has always carried political weight. This year, however, the exercise looks different in ways that matter not only to Manila and Washington, but also to Taipei. What began in 2023 as a shift toward a more serious deterrence posture