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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS