Mon, Jun 11, 2007 page3

• Analysis: Analysts agree on need for US review of Taiwan status

  • By Ko Shu-ling / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) recent comments about the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) have received mixed reviews, but analysts agreed that it would be useful for the US government to review how Taiwan's status is defined by the TRA.

  Chen argued that the TRA recognizes Taiwan as a country, as Section 4 affirms that the absence of diplomatic relations with Taiwan should not affect the application of US laws with respect to Taiwan.

  He also said that many of China's actions were in clear violation of the TRA, especially when Beijing passed its "Anti-secession" Law, which sanctions the use of force should Taiwan declare statehood.

  Chen berated the Beijing government's obstruction of Taiwan's effort to participate in the WHO and the UN as violating Article 2 of the TRA, as it deprives Taiwanese of their fundamental human rights.

  Section 4 also declares that nothing in the TRA may be construed as a basis for supporting the exclusion or expulsion of Taiwan from continued membership in any international financial institution or any other international organization.

  Chen said he recognized the contribution the TRA has made to maintaining peace, security and stability in the Taiwan Strait, but would like to see a careful examination of the decree to determine whether China's recent practices have violated the TRA.

  Chen said that all too often White House and State Department officials launch into a boiler plate answer on Taiwan policy when asked about the statements from or actions taken by the government in Taiwan: The US adheres firmly to its "one China" policy and the policy is defined by the three communiques and the TRA.

  The Shanghai Communique, however, did not declare that "one China" is US policy and that Taiwan is a part of China.

  Instead, it "acknowledges" that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.

  The communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China of 1979 and the Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China of 1982 hold a similar discourse.

  The TRA has been the key instrument of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979.

  With the TRA, the US essentially continues to sell the country weapons, recognize its passports and grant its diplomats immunity from US laws.

  Chen is not alone holding this view. Harvey Feldman, former US ambassador to Taiwan and a drafter of the TRA, said in a recent article published on the Heritage Foundation's Web site that Taiwan is certainly a state in US law as the TRA states: "Whenever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan."

  "For all purposes other than the exchange of formal embassies and ambassadors, US law treats Taiwan as a state separate from the People's Republic of China," he said.

  The legislative history of the TRA makes plain that the US Congress intended the US to support Taiwan's membership in international organizations and that WHO membership for Taiwan is completely in keeping with the "`status quo' as we define it," he said.

  "By the same token, a US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement, when the US finally makes the political decision to move it forward, will be fully consistent with the US' `one China' policy," he said.

  Feldman said it would be useful for the US government, as it seeks to maintain the `status quo' in the Taiwan Strait, to review just how it is defined already in the TRA.

  Lin Cheng-yi (林正義), researcher of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica, said there was little dispute that the US treats Taiwan as a country although the TRA fails to go into great detail.

  "It was debatable when former US secretary of state Colin Powell said that Taiwan had no sovereignty," he said.

  Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政), a political science professor at Soochow University, agreed.

  "The US government's `one China' principle is different from Beijing's and it is obvious that the US does not see Taiwan as a part of China -- nor does it recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state," he said.

  In fact, former US president Bill Clinton spelled out the so-called "three noes" policy during his visit to China in 1998, Lo said.

  Clinton pledged that the US government would not support Taiwan independence, Taiwan's membership in world bodies that require statehood, or the "one Taiwan, one China" or "two Chinas" concepts.

  The Taiwan Policy Review of 1994 reaffirms the policy and states that the US government will support Taiwan's membership in organizations where statehood is not a prerequisite and will support opportunities for Taiwan's voice to be heard in organizations where its membership is not possible.

  While Lin said that Chen's remarks might motivate the US government to review Taiwan's status as defined in the TRA, he said he thought it would be "over-extension in meaning" to blame Washington for not supporting Taiwan's bids to join the UN and WHO as a full member.

  Lo said he thought it was "inappropriate" and "strange" for the president to cite a US law and tell them what to do.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Eurovision Song Contest triggers surge in betting interest

  • 2

    Barcelona crowned champions

  • 3

    Napoli close in on title despite Parma stalemate

  • 4

    Sinner cruises past Ruud, Gauff battles into final

  • 5

    Entertainers questioned amid military service furor