The US Department of State on May 5 published a new version of the “US Relations with Taiwan” fact sheet on its Web site. The updated version expunged several statements from the former text which dates back to Aug. 31, 2018. The deleted passages were that the US “acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China,” and that the US “does not support Taiwan independence.”
In their place, the text now reads: “The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three US-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.”
After the fact sheet was updated Beijing appeared flustered and agitated, and lashed out at the US. In stark contrast, Washington calmly reiterated that the US’ “one China policy” is distinct from China’s “one China principle,” and added that its “one China policy” has not changed.
Washington was simply spelling out a plain truth that Beijing finds hard to swallow — that the US, under its longstanding “one China” policy, has never recognized that Taiwan is part of China.
Beijing’s “one China principle” contains three elements: there is only one China in the world; The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the sole legal representative government of China; and Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese sovereign territory.
Washington’s “one China” policy is structured around a global consensus that recognizes the first two elements of Beijing’s “one China principle,” but categorically rejects the third.
The US’ “one China policy” and Beijing’s “one China principle” are as different as chalk and cheese.
On establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC, most major nations deployed subtle phraseology in the official communique with China to circumvent Beijing’s position that “Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese sovereign territory.”
In a communique with the PRC, the then-Canadian government stated that it would “take note of” Beijing’s position. Italy, Chile, Belgium, Peru, Lebanon, Iceland, Argentina, Greece and several other nations adopted Canada’s wording in their communiques with China. The Japanese government used the phrase “understand and respect” — which was emulated by the Philippines, the Netherlands and several other nations.
The US, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Spain, Malaysia, Thailand and a number of other nations used the word “acknowledge.”
One can see that foreign governments deployed deliberately equivocal language in the communiques and carefully avoided making any categorical statements that they “recognized” Beijing’s claim over Taiwan.
However, in an act of pathetic self-deception worthy of Ah Q — the protagonist in the novella The True Story of Ah Q by Chinese author Lu Xun (魯迅) — in each case, Chinese diplomats translated “take note of,” “understand and respect” and “acknowledge” with the word chengren (承認, recognize) in the Chinese-language versions of the communiques.
Examine the language used in the previous version of the fact sheet published on the US Department of State Web site, which refers to the Second Joint Communique between the US and China, signed in 1979.
“The United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”
The passage starts by “recognizing” that the PRC is the legal government of China, but the language then abruptly changes: the US merely “acknowledges” Beijing’s view that there is “one China” and that “Taiwan is part of China.”
The word “acknowledge” — used not once, but twice — is an unequivocal downgrading of the language — the text could not be clearer.
Not only has the US never “recognized” that Taiwan is part of China, every time the US “acknowledges” China’s position, Beijing absurdly tries to spin this into a “recognition” of its stance.
Washington appears to have lost patience with Beijing’s silly semantic games and decided that it will simply cease to “acknowledge” China’s position.
US officials are likely concerned that they do not want to give Beijing any more opportunities to co-opt their wording, have a free lunch at Washington’s expense and restrict Taiwan’s space on the international stage. Who could object to this pragmatic approach?
I would go one step further: As the US has clearly stated that it does not recognize that Taiwan is a part of China, going forward, the issue of Taiwanese independence should be a bilateral matter to be worked out between the US and Taiwan. With China removed from the equation, if Washington were one day to announce the restoration of formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, Beijing would not be able to use the “one China” canard to advance its spurious territorial claims.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Edward Jones
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS