President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) recently expressed his support for holding a referendum to decide whether to apply for UN membership under the name Taiwan. The US State Department said it opposed this plan. This was not the first time the State Department had said it was against a referendum in Taiwan, but while in the past it said it did not support a referendum, this time around it clearly opposes it.
As the US is a democratic country, surely the State Department knows that this statement is a brazen meddling in the internal affairs of another country. I am sure the US knows this, and since it knows, why does it take this stance? Several media reports have said the reason the US does is because Chen is retreating from his "four noes and one without" pledge
Yet, if we look closely at the State Department's statement, Chen supposedly breaking his pledge is surely only an excuse. What the US really means is in the second part of the statement, when it says: "The United States opposes any initiative that appears designed to change Taiwan's status unilaterally. This would include a referendum on whether to apply to the United Nations under the name Taiwan. Such a referendum would have no practical impact on Taiwan's UN status, it would increase tensions in the Taiwan Strait."
Under US President George W. Bush, Washington has repeatedly stated it is against any change in the status quo. There are different interpretations of what this "status quo" is. Many commentators assume that the "status quo" the US talks about means some vague status of Taiwan not being independent but also not a part of China. Hence, the people satisfied with the "status quo" happily accept this definition.
But the "status quo" the US talks about is not Taiwan as neither independent nor a part of China, but Taiwan's status remaining undetermined. The US opposes any unilateral move that would change the "status quo" from undetermined to determined.
To examine the reasons behind the US interpretation, we can look into the opinions of previous US officials. At the time the US Senate ratified the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of China (ROC) and the US, a supplementary decision was made whereby the treaty could not influence the legal status and sovereignty of Taiwan and Penghu.
On Dec. 12, 1954, US secretary of state John Foster Dulles told a press conference that "technical sovereignty over [Taiwan] and [Penghu] has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan."
Similarly, after the UN revoked the ROC's right of representation, and when the US was preparing to set up diplomatic relations with China, on Nov. 12, 1971, the State Department's legal advisor, John Stevenson, wrote a memorandum to assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs Marshall Green in which he stated: "Since the 1952 Japanese Peace Treaty, the United States has taken the position that [the] status of Taiwan is undetermined, subject to some future international resolution. That position has been stated publicly from time to time."
In the joint communique the US and China signed in Shanghai in 1972, the US acknowledged Beijing's position that "Taiwan is a part of China," but it did not say it supported this. Afterwards, Green denied that the communique represented a change in the position the US had held since 1950. He was of the opinion that the status of Taiwan was still undetermined.
When Henry Kissinger, national security adviser to US president Richard Nixon, met Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) on Oct, 21, 1971, he said that the US was"not encouraging any government to maintain the position that the status is undetermined ... But [I cannot confirm] what tactical position we will take if another government raises whether the status of Taiwan is undetermined. I can confirm our position to bring about peaceful solution within the framework of one China."
Kissinger's words had an important influence on the US' Taiwan policy. Washington had assured Beijing it would not say that "the status of Taiwan is still undetermined," but deep down, the US kept thinking that it was. And because the status of Taiwan was still undetermined, the US could build up relations with Taiwan on all levels through the Taiwan Relations Act. How would the US resolve these difficult issues? That's where the talk about the "status quo" came in.
When we look at how the whole situation has evolved, we see that the reason this issue has become so complicated was mostly that Nixon, because he wanted a quick end to the Vietnam War, completely trusted Kissinger's plans, to the point that he was defeated in the UN and in his talks with China.
The US should remember this lesson and not again try to feed Beijing's hunger for power by putting pressure on Taiwan. The more the US stresses that a referendum in Taiwan will increase cross-strait tensions, the more China is encouraged in its aggression toward Taiwan and its talk of military action against Taiwan.
If it is US strategy to view Taiwan's status as undetermined, it should make a public appeal to all the peace-loving people in the world, especially China's government and its people, to respect the Taiwanese people's will.
As long-term US allies, the people of Taiwan are waiting for Washington to change its view on the status of Taiwan, and for it to view Taiwan as a country that can participate in international affairs and have its share of international rights and obligations.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at Tamkang University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has over the past few months continued to escalate its hegemonic rhetoric and increase its incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone. The US, in turn, has finally realized how its “strategic ambiguity” is increasingly wearing thin. Similarly, any hopes the US had that the PRC would be a responsible stakeholder and economic player have diminished, if not been abandoned. Taiwan, of course, remains as the same de facto independent, democratic nation that the PRC covets. As a result, the US needs to reconsider not only the amount, but also the type of arms
Taking advantage of my Taipei Times editors’ forbearance, I thought I would go with a change of pace by offering a few observations on an interesting nature topic, the many varieties of snakes in Taiwan. I will be drawing on my experiences living in Taiwan five times, from my teenage years in Kaohsiung back in the early sixties, to my last assignment as American Institute in Taiwan Director in 2006-9. Taiwan, with its semitropical climate, is a perfect setting for serpents. Indeed, one might say serpents are an integral part of the island’s ecosystem. Taiwan is warm, humid, with lots of
China constantly seeks out ways to complain about perceived slights and provocations as pretexts for its own aggressive behavior. It is both victimization paranoia and a form of information warfare that keeps the West on the defensive. True to form, China objected even to the innocuous reference to Taiwan at April 16’s summit meeting between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. Neither leader’s prepared remarks even mentioned Taiwan, out of deference to the Japanese side. Biden’s opening statement was modest: “Prime Minister Suga and I affirmed our ironclad support for US-Japanese alliance and for our shared security.
Last month, the Philippine National Task Force on the West Philippine Sea reported that more than 200 Chinese fishing vessels were anchored at the disputed Whitsun Reef in the South China Sea, known as Julian Felipe Reef in the Philippines. The task force released astonishing photographs, which showed clusters of enormous fishing trawlers at anchor and tied together in neat rows. Needless to say, the ships were not engaging in commercial fishing activity; they belong to China’s “maritime militia.” Beijing’s flimsy official explanation is that the vessels are temporarily seeking shelter from inclement weather. This is patently ridiculous, given the time that