Sun, Sep 01, 2002 page8

• Taiwan's future up to its 23 million

  • By the Liberty Times Editorial
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  On Monday, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage made important clarifications in Beijing regarding US policy on Taiwan, saying that the US neither supports nor opposes Taiwan independence. Speaking at a press conference in Beijing, Armitage first reiterated the US position that it does not support Taiwan independence, and then explained that "no support" does not necessarily mean "opposition.

  "I think the wording is important," he said. "By saying we do not support it is one thing. It's different from saying that we oppose it," Armitage said.

  Armitage's words immediately became the focus of public attention, triggering reactions from different groups within Taiwan. While the State Department later said that Armitage's comments had been completely in line with US policy not to support "Taiwan independence." Its intention, obviously, was to assuage the Chinese.

  It is worth noting the details of Armitage's exchange with an Associated Press reporter in which he made these much-publicized remarks. After Armitage indicated that the US does not support Taiwan independence, the reporter asked why the US government was now adopting a position on the issue, and whether it would continue to decline to support Taiwan independence if the people of Taiwan decided that Taiwan should become independent. In response, besides commenting on the difference between "no support" and "opposition," Armitage said that, "If people on both sides of the Strait came to an agreeable solution, then the United States obviously wouldn't inject ourselves. It's something to be resolved by people on both sides of the question." Armitage then went on to say that that is why the US uses the wording, "We do not support ... "

  From the entirety of Armitage's comments, one can see that while he was still reiterating US policy not to support Taiwan independence, he was also highlighting an even more important principal of US policy -- that the Taiwan issue must be resolved in a peaceful and democratic manner. There must be no violence, which would contravene the popular will. As indicated by Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Katharine Chang (張小月), the emphasis in Armitage's comments was the principle of democracy. In other words, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait must resolve their differences through dialogue, consultation and other peaceful means.

  In the past, many people have consistently held the mistaken belief that the US "recognizes" "one China," and that Taiwan is part of it. In reality, from the Shanghai Communique to the third China-US joint communique, the US has consistently used the word "acknowledge," rather than "recognize" with respect to China's unilateral declaration that "there is only one China, Taiwan being part of it." Put simply, the US "understands" and "knows" the Chinese position, without any intention of expressing agreement with it.

  Even more importantly, the core of US cross-strait policy is the principle of peaceful resolution. This means that the US actually does not have the future of Taiwan mapped out. It is simply providing a structure through which and a principle by which problems may be resolved. So, while it does not support Taiwan independence, if the people of Taiwan decide to take a path of their own via peaceful and democratic means, the US will not oppose their doing so.

  As a result of the US stressing peace and democratic principles, during the 1996 missile crisis in the Taiwan Strait, the US government refused to sit idly by in the face of the China's threats and sent aircraft carriers to the region to support Taiwan. This despite the fact that the Bill Clinton administration had leaned heavily toward China. While current US President George W. Bush may need Chinese cooperation in the war against terror, he has also reiterated the spirit of the Taiwan Relation's Act in order to strengthen Taiwan's security, promising to do whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend itself. In the grand scheme of things, Armitage's words are clearly within the bounds of US-Taiwan relations. He simply highlighted the elements of democracy and peace, which have been deliberately ignored in the past.

  Former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan Richard Bush claims that he explained to the Taiwan government as early as 1998 that the US does not support Taiwan independence, but that does not mean it opposes it. Obviously, Armitage's words reflect consistent US policy toward Taiwan.

  But the reaction of the opposition camp within Taiwan is truly puzzling. The pro-unification camp was enraged by the comments. Their reaction was the same when President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) made his "special state-to-state" remark and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) his "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait comment.

  The PFP hopes that Chen will not misjudge the international situation, emphasizing that a majority of people favor the status quo. Any change to the status quo will require the consent of the people of Taiwan, and Taiwan should not sit back and accept a diktat from foreign states on its future, the PFP has said.

  The KMT also believes that a majority of the people in Taiwan support the status quo. The baffling thing is that the "status quo" to which the KMT and PFP refer is one with the PRC on one side of the Taiwan Strait and the ROC on the other. How does this differ from "special state-to-state" relations or "one country on each side?" In particular, because the US government does not oppose "Taiwan independence," the pro-unification camp now emphasizes that any change to the status quo will require the consent of all the people of Taiwan and that foreign views on the matter should not be blithely accepted. Isn't this essentially a call for a public referendum? Haven't the PFP and the KMT just fiercely condemned Chen's "one country on each side" and "public referendum" comments for supposedly inviting disaster? Why did they decide to sing the same tune only a few days later?

  Taiwan is not only an independent, sovereign country; it is also a democratic country. The destiny of a democratic country is, of course, decided by its people. The future of Taiwan, therefore, should be decided by its 23 million people, rather than be dictated by the powerful. In the face of Chinese depredations, Taiwan's survival depends on economic development and democracy. Democracy denies foreign designs upon Taiwan the slightest legitimacy. Democracy has long been Taiwan's shield against China.

  In view of the contrasting fortunes of the economies on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, however, one cannot help but worry for Taiwan. The government's economic and trade policies lean toward China, while the private sector continues to hold illusions about the Chinese market. More and more people and capital from Taiwan are becoming casualties on the march to China. Taiwan's industries have become uprooted, leaving only bad loans in Taiwan. The Chinese black hole is devastating Taiwan. Once Taiwan has lost its economic prowess, its democracy will lose its roots. By then, no matter how strongly the international community may support Taiwan, the country will no longer have the strength to resist China. The people of Taiwan must be alert to this potential crisis.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Palmeiras hopes for club cup win

  • 2

    Taiwan to see nine extended holidays in 2026

  • 3

    Pegatron ranks last in Greenpeace report

  • 4

    Taiwan blacklists Huawei and SMIC

  • 5

    Ma Ying-jeou’s forum speech regrettable, MAC says