Shanghai. 1972. Then US president Richard Nixon and secretary of state Henry Kissinger agree with chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and foreign minister Zhou Enlai (周恩來) to recognize that there is one China, and that Taiwan is part of China. This becomes known as the Shanghai Communique. More than a generation later this policy is strongly maintained. And it is today out of date at best, and the potential cause of war at worst.
In terms of international diplo-macy, declarations and communiques are not law. They are statements made by leaders to establish a working policy for international relationships. Although they provide order for a limited period of time, they usually outlive their purpose.
The "one China" policy was declared in China. The people of Taiwan had no say in the matter whatsoever. The policy was created to keep China out of the Vietnam War, to counterbalance the Soviet Union with China and to open markets for America. The Chinese wanted control of Tai-wan because it was seen as an imperialist controlled bridge to Asia. It had been used in the Korean War to provide resources to American troops, and in the Vietnam War to provide human and material assistance to Saigon.
The original purpose of this agreement is no longer valid or relevant. The Vietnam War is over, the Soviet Union has imploded and the US has plenty of trade with China.
However, since 1972, the Bei-jing authorities have created a muscular myth about Taiwan's identity and China's rights to it. Beijing has even retained the right to use force against a Taiwan that would claim independence or that would put off the decision of re-uniting with China too long.
This full-scale propaganda is not unlike the Nazi claim to be an extension of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Islamic fundamentalist claim to reunite the Middle East and Asia. China even displays maps of the period of the Han dynasty which show Taiwan and its major cities across the Taiwan Strait. Would maps of ancient Rome show Little Italy in New York?
Why is "one China" harmful?
First, the policy limits the US' range of options in East Asia. We are blackmailed by our own policy. Any statement that recognizes Taiwan's right to be a mem-ber of international organizations, or to receive international aid (such as from the Red Cross or World Health Organization) is immediately attacked for undermining the "one China" policy.
Second, the claim for "one China" is a recent manifestation of China's nationalism and socialism. Before 1900, there was little mention of "one China." In fact the term "Middle Kingdom" to refer to China was not extensively used until the early 20th century. The term was made current by the imperialists who wanted to call China by a name other than the flowery names or dynastic names that were in vogue.
The policy perpetuates a myth that is used to justify the subjugation and control of an island that has never been under the authority of the Beijing government.
Third, Taiwan is a democratic country of 23 million citizens. President Chen Shui-bian (
To allow Beijing's intimidations of Taiwan to hamper an authentic expression of the people's will on the basis of a myth is contrary to all of our principles of democracy and freedom. It is important for the US leadership to show Beijing why an independent Taiwan is healthy for them, and subduing Taiwan is unhealthy.
Taiwan could be an excellent offshore base for independent and unfettered technological and industrialized development. Taiwan as a business development center could accelerate China's economic development. Taiwan's democracy could become a model for China's own political modernization. The sharing of economic, intellectual, cultural and political ideas would be expedited by a free and equal Taiwan.
The undermining of Taiwan's political system, or an outright attack on Taiwan would force China into a post-colonial relationship with the population. This relationship would drain the resources of China, contribute to tremendous ill feeling, and result finally in the hollowing out of Taiwan. Both Taiwan and China would become losers.
Rather than continue with a status quo that is destructive of the morale of the Taiwanese people, and feeds the militancy of China, the US should seek a regional arrangement to protect Taiwan, and to utilize Taiwan's resources for the development of China. New thinking is required to change our policies. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a dead end that is more costly, and less free for all concerned.
Richard Kagan is professor of East Asian studies at Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Local media reported earlier this month that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) criticized President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for referring to China as a “neighboring country,” saying that this is no different from a “two-state” model and that it amounts to changing the cross-strait “status quo.” I find it quite impossible to understand why civilized Taiwan continues to tolerate the existence of such a deceitful group that believes its own lies. The relationship between Taiwan and China is the relationship between two countries, and neither has any jurisdiction over the other — this is the undeniable “status quo.” Those who believe in the
On Thursday, China applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) — a regional economic organization whose 11 member countries have a combined GDP of US$11 trillion. That is less than China’s 2019 GDP of US$14.34 trillion, so why is China so eager to join? China says there are two main reasons: To consolidate its foreign trade and foreign investment base, and to fast-track economic and trade relations between China and member countries of the CPTPP free-trade area. China’s bilateral trade with these countries grew from US$78 billion in 2003 to US$685.1 billion last year, mostly because of China’s 2005
US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) talked on the telephone on Thursday last week, the first time the two leaders have done so since Biden assumed the presidency. While each side sought to put their own gloss on the content of the conversation, some common ground did emerge. Biden reportedly said that both sides have a joint responsibility to ensure that competition between the US and China does not spiral into conflict and that there is no reason that the two nations are destined to fall into this trap. The day after the phone call, the Financial Times reported
WASHINGTON [Special Commentary]: It is just a teensy-weensy change, a change of one little syllable. It is barely noticeable unless you’re watching really carefully: The Tai-“pei” Representative Office in Washington, D.C. (TECRO) could soon change its name — just ever so very slightly — to Tai-“wan” Representative Office. The office’s “TECRO” initials would remain the same. It will be only a symbolic change. London’s Financial Times reported last week that such a change may soon be coming. The timing was a bit awkward, though. The FT’s report came out on the very same day that Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu (吳釗燮)