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
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