Status quo defined by US
The phrase "one China," now ubiquitous, is widely misunderstood and leads to endless problems, as your essay about A-mei (
The US has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. This was true even when the US recognized the Republic of China as the legitimate government of all China. Even then, the US acknowledged only administrative control of Taiwan. The whole point of the complex wording of the Shanghai Communique and other documents was to avoid conceding sovereignty, while giving China enough face for the reconciliation process to continue. Our position over sovereignty has been regularly, but quietly, reiterated ever since and is unlikely to change.
So if "one China" does not mean that Taiwan is part of China, what does it mean? I gather that phrase was introduced accidentally during the Clinton administration in the text of a poorly drafted letter to Beijing which has never been made public. This suggests that we did not know what we meant when we introduced the wording; we were above all concerned with mollifying China.
But one interpretation of the phrase does make sense.
Although the US recognized both East and West Germany, and will conceivably recognize both Seoul and Pyongyang, in the case of governments claiming to represent China (as did those of both Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), though Taipei has discarded the latter's claim in practice), the US has instead chosen to impose upon itself the rule that it must choose only one. "One China" thus tells us nothing about territory. It only tells us which government we recognize, given that we can pick only one. This can be compared to the Hallstein Doctrine, which required recognition of only one Germany -- and which was wisely discarded.
The problem with the US position today is that all of our diplomacy -- at least until the important statement made by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly to Congress in April -- has been premised on the expectation that somehow Taiwan and China would work things out, rendering issues of sovereignty moot. As Kelly has now made clear, this outcome seems unlikely, and therefore the US position is to maintain the status quo "as we define it."
This is not ideal and it will completely satisfy neither side, but it does give official recognition to a situation that both can live with, and if they have any sense, they will work within this new framework rather than challenge it. Ultimate resolution, alas, appears as distant as ever.
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of
International Relations,University of Pennsylvania
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