The statement by US Secretary of State Colin Powell that "[Taiwan] does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation," and his call for a peaceful unification between Taiwan and China have stirred up heavy political crossfire in Taipei.
Although Powell later corrected part of his terminology in an interview with CNBC (saying the right term was "peaceful resolution," not "peaceful unification") and the administration of US President George W. Bush clarified that no policy change had been made toward China and Taiwan, the timing and motivation of the initial unusual expression of Washington's stance on the cross-strait situation deserves an in-depth analysis.
First, did Powell's statement indicate changes to the US' long-term "one China" policy or was it simply a personal description of the current cross-strait situation?
The so-called US "one China" policy derives from the 1972 Shanghai communique, in which the US stated that it "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China."
The US later agreed that the government of the People's Republic of China is the "sole legal government of China."
Under the "one China" policy, the US has never recognized Taiwan or the Republic of China as an independent and sovereign country.
From the perspective of policy implementation, the US has consistently rejected the idea of supporting Taiwan's participation in any international organizations where statehood is required. Even so, the principle is not entirely without exceptions given, for example, Bush's support of Taiwan's recent bid for observer status at the UN-affiliated World Health Assembly.
In this regard, Powell's interpretation should be treated as a continuation of the US' acknowledgement of Taiwan's official status quo. No political implication should be added into such a description.
As Chen pledged on several occasions, Taiwan will not preclude any possibilities for developing a future relationship with China -- as long as the formula is accepted by the people of Taiwan.
What Taiwan insists on is the process used to reach an ultimate resolution. It must go through a democratic procedure and requires a free choice made by Taiwan's 23 million people.
The most likely scenario is that the remarks were Powell's personal elaboration of statements made by Bush on Dec. 9 last year when he met with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao (
Sensing a growing consciousness of Taiwanese identity and a tendency toward de jure independence after Chen's re-election, Powell offered "lip service" to the Chinese leaders and hurt the Taiwanese people.
It is true that there have been ups and downs in relations between Washington and Taipei in the past 10 months. As Taiwan's leaders keep emphasizing Taiwan's independent sovereignty, Beijing has doubled its pressure on Washington.
It is natural for the Bush administration to make an extra effort to maintain a friendly atmosphere with its Chinese counterpart before the general election. Nevertheless, appeasing China should not be conducted at the expense of Taipei's pursuit of dialogue and normalization with Beijing.
Perhaps this was an unfortunate break in the momentum to press Beijing to be flexible on the resumption of cross-strait dialogue.
Liu Kuan-teh is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS