In response to threats recently leveled at Taiwan by a mid-level Chinese official, the US state department has reiterated its policy that the use of force is not an acceptable way of resolving the difference of opinion over the cross-strait issue. The State Department also reiterated US opposition to any unilateral change to the cross-strait status quo.
The US opposes the use of force to solve the cross-strait dispute; that position is clear. The US should not be alone in persisting in this policy. What's more, a love for peace and an opposition to the use of force to resolve conflicts are important parts of the UN Charter. The position stated by the US when it established diplomatic relations with China was that it would not tolerate an armed solution to the cross-strait dispute. It was both appropriate and necessary for the US to reiterate this point as a reminder to China.
The second part of the statement, however -- that the US opposes any unilateral attempt to change the cross-strait status quo -- is not clear, and it is unfair to Taiwan's democratic progress. There is no agreement about the exact definition of the cross-strait status quo, nor is there any clear definition of what the US means by the status quo.
Since there is no agreed definition, opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo is a matter of subjectivity.
There are three fundamental components to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait:
First, for more than half a century, neither Taiwan nor China has been under the jurisdiction of the other side, and they have both had their own government, territory and people.
Second, the only possible way change the status quo would be to change "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" into "one country on both sides of the Taiwan Strait."
Third, there is no Taiwanese policy aiming at one country on both sides.
China is the only country that wants to change the status quo, and the only country attempting to use force to coerce Taiwan into changing the status quo.
This has been the fundamental cross-strait status for more than half a century. Based on democratic values and the spirit of the UN Charter, the policy of the US and the international community should not be to talk frivolously about opposing unilateral changes to the status quo. Rather, it should be to actively recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, thus allowing one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait to develop independently towards democracy and freedom.
If the US and the international community, including China, do not recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, but instead allow China to interpret the status quo and define what Taiwan can and cannot do, then they will be sacrificing the principles of democracy. What's more, China's dominating mind-set will harm regional stability and normal development.
As a democratic country, the US cannot tolerate China's arbitrary meddling in Taiwan's democratic development. The US must not give China the freedom to define Taiwanese independence. Taiwan is not part of China's territory, nor is it a colony of any country. It is an independent, democratic country built on popular sovereignty. Its people have the final right to make decisions concerning reform of their governmental system and policy adjustments. Its people have the right to amend the anachronistic and inappropriate Constitution that they in the past have been forced to accept, or to create a new constitution.
If Taiwan needs China's approval to amend its Constitution, or to create a new constitution, then Taiwan is not an independent country, but has deteriorated to the same position as Hong Kong. But Taiwan's status quo is not that of Hong Kong. Taiwan hass a currently implemented Constitution, while China has a dictatorial and totalitarian "constitution" that is in direct opposition to democracy, freedom and human rights.
China's constitution stipulates that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China." That in itself is an attempt to change the status quo, which is that neither of the two sides has anything to do with the other side. China is the kind of non-democratic, domineering country that the US State Department should condemn.
Towards the end of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rule, Taiwan's "Constitution of the Republic of China" was amended, the Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion (
Former president Lee Teng-hui (
It is true that there are differing opinions regarding the "special state-to-state" and "one country on each side" models in Taiwan. Just as with the issue of a majority of people opposing those who accept the "one China" model, however, this is a domestic issue that can be addressed through the democratic process. The workings of this democratic process should be enthusiastically supported by all democratic countries. The US should not take a conservative approach towards Taiwan's democratic development just because a non-democratic country with hegemonic ambitions harbors a differing opinion.
Democracy is a process of growth and development. The US must not restrict Taiwan's democracy and turn it into a "birdcage democracy," nor should it restrict Taiwan by turning that birdcage into the status quo.
The US has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. It has no grounds for accepting China's demands for restricting Taiwan's democracy. The Taiwan Relations Act treats Taiwan as an independent country, and it calls this island, its people and its government "Taiwan." It is only natural that the people of Taiwan are called by their right name and that a new constitution should be created. It is China that is blocking the development of Taiwanese democracy and attempting to crush the "one country on each side" model, as well as the stable development of each side. Taiwan merely asks that the two remain separated and that each side respect the other side's internal democratic reforms.
If the US treats the deepening of Taiwanese democracy -- and pragmatic progress toward sovereignty -- as off limits, they are showing contempt for democratic principles and they are showing insufficient respect for Taiwan's democratic development.
US policy should be to recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, and to strongly urge China to follow the global trend toward democratization and liberalization and to strive for domestic and international peace and stability.
The real source of instability is a non-democratic country's interference with a democratic country's reforms.
James Wang is a Washington-based journalist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS