Almost a decade ago, US Senator Tom Daschle spoke in one of the basement rooms in the US Capitol about Taiwan. Within 20 minutes, the senator referred to Taiwan as "Taiwan," as "the Republic of China," as "the Republic of China on Taiwan," "Republic of Taiwan" and even as "the People's Republic of China on Taiwan."
During the question-and-answer session, one of the members of the audience stood up, reminded the senator of the different ways in which he had referred to the country, and asked the senator why he did not just refer to it as "Taiwan." "That is a good idea," the senator answered and vowed to do so from now on.
Rectifying the name of Taiwan would not only clarify the world's confusion about how to refer to the nation, it would also clarify US policy and open the door to full international diplomatic recognition of the independent democracy the 23 million strong Taiwanese people have built.
It is already US policy not to call Taiwan the Republic of China. A Sept. 26, 1996, State Department memo states, "Consistent with the unofficial nature of US-Taiwan ties, the US Government does not refer to Taiwan as the `Republic of China' or the `Republic of China on Taiwan.' Neither does the US Government refer to Taiwan as a `Country' or a `government.' We refer to Taiwan simply as `Taiwan' and to its government officials as `the Taiwan authorities.' We use `Taiwanese' only in reference to the ethnic/linguistic group which was on the island prior to the late 1940s, as opposed to the `Mainlanders' who arrived later."
The US has been quite consistent in referring to Taiwan as "Taiwan" and not as the Republic of China.
The Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the land that established the firm basis for continued US-Taiwan relations after 1979. The unofficial State Department branch that deals with Taiwan is called the "American Institute in Taiwan." There is a Taiwan Desk at the State Department.
Congress has also been consistent in using "Taiwan" in legislation. In the April 30, 1994, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Section 132, the text reads, "For purposes of the registration of birth or certification of nationality or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in Taiwan, the Secretary of State shall permit the place of birth to be recorded as `Taiwan.'" Neither the Republic of China nor the Republic of China on Taiwan can be listed as place of birth in the passports of Taiwanese-Americans.
Since the official US position has always been that Taiwan's status has yet to be determined and the US has never recognized either ROC or PRC sovereignty over Taiwan, rectifying the name of the nation to Taiwan would clarify the US position.
The historical record on this question is quite clear. When discussing the offshore islands in 1954, then-secretary of state John Foster Dulles made a clear distinction between Quemoy (Kinmen) and Matsu being Chinese territory on the one hand and the unsolved status of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands on the other:
"The legal position is different, by virtue of the fact that technical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores 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. Therefore the juridical status of these islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, is different from the juridical status of the offshore islands which have always been Chinese territory."
Perhaps we should qualify the above statement that it is not US policy to call Taiwan the Republic of China.
The US position makes a distinction between "Formosa and the Pescadores" and the "offshore islands which have always been Chinese territory." So, one could argue that the US does recognize the ROC insofar as it has sovereignty over the offshore islands, but does not recognize the ROC as having any sovereignty over Taiwan.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) would have to qualify his statement, then, that the ROC does not exist any more. The juridical position of the US would seem to be that the ROC exists, but only on Kinmen and Matsu.
Rectifying Taiwan's name would force "international action" to determine the status of the island and give Taiwanese citizens the opportunity to argue that they have effectively exercised their right to self-determination, provided for in the UN Charter, by creating a full-fledged democracy on Taiwan.
And it would surely make life easier for Daschle and his 534 colleagues in the US Congress.
Wu Ming-chi is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS