The PRC insists on the "one China" principle as the foundation of its policy toward Taiwan. The principle is a syllogism which runs as follows: There is only one China. The PRC is the sole, legitimate government of all China, of which Taiwan is a part. Therefore, Taiwan is subject to the sovereignty of the PRC, under the authority of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The US government, on the other hand, says it abides by the "one China" policy, often without explaining what is meant by the phrase. There are at least three substantive differences between the positions of Washington and Beijing.
First, China claims sovereignty over Taiwan, based on flimsy legal and historical grounds. The US merely acknowledges (ie, takes note of) the fact that the "Chinese" on both sides of the Taiwan strait claim Taiwan is part of China. The US has never recognized (ie, accepted) the PRC's sovereignty claim. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Jim Kelly has reiterated this point, citing former president Ronald Reagan's "six assurances." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay also emphasized this fact in his June 2 speech at the American Enterprise Institute and added that US "recognition of Beijing's territorial claims over Taiwan ... never will exist."
Second, as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the US considers "any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means ... a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." The three communiques are also predicated on peaceful settlement. China, however, has reneged on this agreement, having won US recognition of the PRC and other concessions. China insists on its "right" to use force against Taiwan, in order to gratify its expansionist ambitions.
Finally, the US maintains that any determination of the future status of Taiwan must have the assent of the people of Taiwan. China's position is that Taiwan's status should be determined by the 1.3 billion Chinese living under the CCP's control. The 23 million Taiwanese do not have a say in the choice between freedom and servitude.
Chinese officials and Beijing's diplomats have cleverly tried to portray the US' "one China" policy as one and the same as Beijing's "one China" principle. By repeating the "one China" policy mantra without any elaboration, the US government and the media have misled the public and the international community, causing an erroneous perception that America has recognized China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and unwittingly served as Beijing's propaganda mouthpiece.
Taiwan's inability to shed the archaic Republic of China constitutional framework also makes it more difficult for the nation to assert its separate sovereignty. The result is dire damage to Taiwan's international standing and the nation's growing isolation in the global community.
If Taiwan were to fall into China's hands, there would be adverse consequences for US strategic, political and economic interests throughout Asia. With China's armed forces controlling the vital sea lanes and air space around Taiwan, Japan's security would be mortally threatened. The damage to America's credibility as a guarantor of peace in East Asia may be so severe that Japan will face the unpalatable choice of either going nuclear or becoming a protectorate of the PRC. In time, the US could well be forced to withdraw from the Western Pacific.
As DeLay has stated, the "one China" policy is merely the means to America's primary objective in Asia, which is "the preservation of democracy and the expansion of freedom." When the Shanghai communique was issued in 1972, Taiwan was under the White Terror rule of Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) KMT. The "Chinese" in Taiwan at that time referred to the authoritarian KMT regime, since the Taiwanese people were forbidden to express their views.
Since the late 1980s, the people of Taiwan have transformed the nation into a thriving democracy, after decades of struggle during which tens of thousands of people lost their lives or years of their youth languishing in prison. The Taiwanese have earned the right to decide their own future without any outside pressure.
The basic premise of the "one China" policy that both the Tai-wanese and Chinese agree that Taiwan is part of China is false. Opinion surveys show that some 80 percent of the Taiwanese reject CCP rule and prefer Taiwan's de facto status as an independent democracy.
Regarding the US' position on Taiwan independence, the following comments of Senator Jesse Helms, former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, are relevant: "The United States should neither support nor oppose independence for Taiwan. While a declaration of independence by Taiwan would be suicidal and must not be encouraged, Taiwan is, after all, a democracy; as a revolutionary nation ourselves, the US has little moral authority to foreclose that option to the 23 million free people who live in Taiwan."
The TRA affirms "the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan" as objectives of the US. The right of self determination is a basic human right which is enshrined in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
As a signatory to the covenant and a fellow democracy, it would be inappropriate for the US to oppose the Taiwanese people's right to freely determine Taiwan's future status, through a referendum or otherwise.
After the Sept. 11 attacks on the US, there has been a marked warming in US-China relations. However, the US must take care that such an improvement in relations is not based on excessive deference to PRC sensitivity on the Taiwan issue. After all, China's contribution to the global war on terror is minor. China's efforts in resolving the North Korean nuclear standoff serve its own self-interest. There is no need for the US to make superfluous concessions to Bei-jing in return.
The "one China" policy no longer serves US interests in maintaining peace and stability of East Asia. By acquiescing in China's chauvinism, this policy invites Chinese military aggression against Taiwan and an eventual US-China military conflict.
It is high time the "one China" policy be discarded in favor of a proactive strategy of maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, at least until such time as the PRC gives up its policy of military aggrandizement and it ceases to threaten its neighbors. A policy of appeasing China could well lead to deadly dangers to the US homeland.
As the late US congressman Gerald Solomon declared: Taiwan's security is ultimately America's security as well.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS