US Secretary of State Colin Powell's trip to Japan, China and South Korea was only a matter of handling routine business, and it is unthinkable that it would involve a change of policy. Anyone could come to this conclusion by applying some common sense. The US presidential election was only a week away, there had been three presidential debates, and US cross-strait policy did not make it onto the US campaign agenda. At such a moment, would the US Secretary of State travel abroad to declare a new policy?
Powell's answers at the press briefing in Beijing after meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) on Oct. 25 were in fact very cautious. In response to a question whether he felt any pressure from Hu on the issue of US arms sales to Taiwan, Powell said "I reiterated that our policy was based on `one China,' the three communiques, but also the responsibility that we have under our law -- the Taiwan Relations Act -- to make sure that Taiwan [is] able to defend itself ... We very carefully balance the responsibilities that we have to China and the responsibilities that we have to Taiwan under our own domestic law."
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Powell's mistake lies in his replies to two questions during a private interview with Anthony Yuen (阮次山) from Phoenix TV at the China World Hotel in Beijing on Oct. 25.
Yuen asked "Recently the Chinese [have been] a touch bit nervous. Taiwan keeps on saying that `We don't need to declare independence because we are already an independent country with sovereignty ... there are already some twenty-six countries that recognize us, so many countries.' What does this mean to you?"
Powell's reply was to say that "Well, they can make these sorts of statements but our policy is clear. There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
Yuen also asked "So this morning when you talked to Mr. Hu, did you talk about the US weapons sales to Taiwan and [if so] what was his response?"
When reiterating what he had said during the press briefing -- that the US has an obligation under its domestic law to make sure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself, that both sides should show restraint and that the US discouraged unilateral actions and encourage dialogue across the Taiwan Strait -- he added "... and move forward ... to that day when we will see a peaceful unification."
In these replies, Powell made two major mistakes. The first reply displayed a head-in-the-sand mentality that ignores Taiwan's status as a sovereign and independent state. The second was the superpower mentality, in which he sees nothing wrong with a superpower interfering in the Taiwanese people's choice of sovereignty.
Not only did Powell violate the Bush administration's national security strategy of promoting a balance of power that favors freedom, but he also betrayed what have been basic US values since the War of Independence.
Ostrich mentality
The first problem is the head-in-the-sand policy of the US government.
This is a longstanding problem, particularly in the US Department of State -- namely, an unwillingness to recognize the fact that the outside world is changing.
From 1949 to 1971 the US government pretended not to see the fact that Mao Zedong's (
The US "one China" policy only came about in 1972, when US president Richard Nixon pulled his head out of the sand and went to Beijing to discuss philosophy with Mao and sign the Shanghai Communique with then prime minister Zhou Enlai (周恩來). The phrase came from a sentence thought up by Henry Kissinger: "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position."
Mao praised Kissinger for that phrase, saying that "This is one clever PhD." This means that "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" is actually not a "1992 consensus," but rather an older "1972 consensus." Mao and Chiang both interpreted their party-controlled state as being the "one China," and the other party was either designated the "Chiang clique" or the "bandit Mao."
So what did the US do? It did not challenge any of the positions and maintained diplomatic relations with the Chiang clique's "one China." At the same time it set up an ambassador-level liaison office to establish a quasi-diplomatic relationship with the bandit Mao's "one China." In other words, the US recognized both "one Chinas" or both party-controlled states.
But good times don't last forever. The US government's dual recognition only lasted for seven years (1972 to 1978). With the arrival of US president Jimmy Carter and his national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US stuck its head back in the sand. This time they pretended not to see the fact that Chiang's small party-controlled state was existing independently of and separately from Deng Xiaoping's (
Carter's "one China" statement in the second Sino-US communique on January 1, 1979, which formally established diplomatic relations between the two countries, was different from Nixon's "one China." Nixon recognized both Mao's and Chiang's "one China" interpretation and maintained official relations with both. Carter abandoned Chiang's "one China" -- by severing diplomatic ties, withdrawing US troops and annulling treaties -- and only recognized Deng's communist state.
When Powell today says that there is only "one China" and that Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, he indeed violates the dual sovereignty recognized in the 1972 Shanghai Communique, while following Carter's and Brzezinski's head-in-the-sand approach.
The superpower mentality
The major change in the Bush administration's national security strategy is the move from Kissinger's and Brzezinski's strategy of a balance of power between superpowers to the strategy of promoting a balance of power that favors freedom -- in other words, a return to the US' founding values.
On Sept. 17, 2002, US President George W. Bush signed a document, "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," and announced it to the world. The opening of the document stresses that " ... we [the US] do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: ..."
The document also stated that "The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity."
When the document talks about the struggle for freedom and human dignity it mentions "our friends in Taiwan or in the Republic of Korea." The legally binding section 813 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, passed by the US Senate and Congress, requires Taiwan to be treated as a non-NATO ally in transfers of defense articles or services under the Arms Export Control Act.
Why? Because Taiwan is no longer a "one China" party-controlled state that the US or any other superpower can use or discard at will. Rather it is a modern liberal democracy that US Senator John Kerry called a model for Asia and the world when giving testimony in Congress. Could it even be imagined that a liberal democracy in the 21st century is not independent and does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, but rather is an enslaved state controlled by other states? Could it be that the free people of a free country do not have the right to choose their own future, and that they have to accept the secretary of state of one superpower pointing the way "toward that day when we will see a peaceful unification" with another, communist, superpower?
It was laughable to see a female TV show host -- who after Sept. 11 dressed up as Osama bin Laden, beard and all, to criticize the US government -- on Oct. 27 suddenly praise Powell's "epoch-making talk" as marking "a major change in US policy" and welcome the arrival of a time when the US and China will join hands to attack President Chen Shui-bian (
I think that this lady was overly excited. Powell's mistaken statements do not make a new epoch, US policy is unlikely to see any major changes, and these dreamers' imagined joint US-China attacks on Chen are even less likely to come true.
There is no need to be too concerned by the two slips of the tongue made by Powell. What he actually said needs to be clarified, analyzed, and any errors identified, but there is no need to take it as gospel and allow it to concern us. Certainly there is no need to rejoice and predict the downfall of President Chen Shui-bian (
Certain people have recently chosen to take Powell's words and exaggerate their significance, thereby scaring the public and affecting the stock market. They are sowing discord for their own purposes. People in Taiwan should reach their own conclusions, and not be influenced by these erroneous views.
No ill will
First, any criticism of Powell here needs to focus on what he actually said, and not on exaggerated interpretations. All in all, Powell has shown no ill will toward Taiwan, and has affirmed democratic freedom here. In the past, he has said that Taiwan was "not a problem, but a success story." During the interview in question, on the subject of Sino-US-Taiwan relations, his main point was to allay China's concerns over US arms sales to Taiwan, and to encourage dialogue between China and Taiwan.
As far as I can make out, there was no premeditated intention on Powell's part to ally himself with China against Taiwan, and Powell's two "slips" were just elicited by the interviewers, Phoenix TV's Yuen or CNN's Mike Chinoy. It is not so surprising that Powell made such an slip, for he has inherited the ostrich mentality of US diplomacy and is still confined by a superpower's dogmatism, passe doctrines and lack of creativity.
To present his comments as a major policy change on the part of the US government is an attempt to fool the public, pure and simple. Is there any difference in the statements that "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation" and that it should "move toward a peaceful reunification" in circumstances similar to those seen in Hong Kong and the idea of "One Country, Three Systems," from the stance of president Bill Clinton down to Stanley Roth and Susan Shirk? In his book The Grand Failure, former US president Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advocated that Taiwan retain its commercial freedom as part of a commercial communist system under China's control.
Therefore, despite the refusal of either Powell or the US State Department to retract his statements, all this means is that there is a conservative element within the US government that wishes to see US-Taiwan relations return to those of an earlier period.
Furthermore, Taiwan is no longer the party-controlled state it was 20 years ago. It is now a free country, governed by 23 million free citizens unwilling to tolerate the willful denial of their rights by a tyrannical state. Should the US authorities wish to deny the independence and sovereignty of this free nation, the first thing they are betraying is the principles of freedom on which the US itself is founded. And the first thing they endanger is Bush's national security strategy of achieving "a balance of power that promotes human freedom," as well as the national interests of the US itself.
Changing times
Second, Taiwan need not fear a change in US policy. The US strategy regarding Taiwan and China has always changed with the times. Taiwan should urge the US to recognize the situation it faces, alter its policy to benefit freedom and divest itself of its ostrich mentality. Taiwan should remind those in the US government from the days of the Carter and Clinton administrations that times have already changed. Taiwan has emerged from being a party-controlled state clutching onto the "one China" concept to the modern, free and democratic nation that it is today.
In Bush's National Security Strategy of the United States of America, as well as in other official documents, Taiwan is said to be a free country, a friend of the US and a key ally. The current status of Taiwan has for some time now ceased to have anything to do with either Chiang or Mao's "one China" concept. The US should stop using such outdated ideas to confuse the issue regarding the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait, which only complicates relations between China, Taiwan and the US.
When Powell said that the "one China" policy has made it possible for Taiwan to develop its democratic system, he is misrepresenting Taiwanese history. Taiwan's democracy is the result of bidding farewell to Chiang's "one China," and refusing to become part of Mao's. Taiwan's democracy has thoroughly rejected any version of "one China," and has kept on a path towards sovereignty, democracy and localization.
If the US wishes to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, it should implement the policy of achieving a "balance of power that promotes human freedom" contained in its national security strategy in the Taiwan Strait itself as well as throughout the Asia Pacific region. This means not only supporting the growth of Taiwan's free democracy, but also urging China to abandon its party dictatorship and move towards democracy itself.
If, as Powell says, the US wants to one day see the peaceful unification of Taiwan with communist China, then they are supporting the notion of a dictatorship swallowing up a free nation, destroying "a balance of power that promotes human freedom," and pushing the world into disaster.
Third, the US must break the shackles of the "one China" policy and look positively on Taiwan as a democratic country, helping nurture a global perspective based on Taiwan consciousness, and affirming the relationship between Taiwan's subjective existence and its sovereignty as part of an international strategy in Taiwan-US-China relations.
The ruckus over Powell's comments indicates that while Taiwan is in many respects a model of a democratic nation, there are areas in which it is less than perfect. We can see this in its lack of self-confidence and self-respect. The existence and development of a free nation does not depend on recognition or lack thereof by any individual. It is that simple.
The US refusal to recognize Taiwan's sovereignty is hardly new. It has been 25 years since the US broke off diplomatic relations, pulled out its forces and terminated its contracts with Taiwan. Prior to that, the US only recognized the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)'s "one China" policy. At no stage has it accepted Taiwan sovereignty.
Since Bush took office, the US has regarded Taiwan in two ways. The first is as "a model young democracy," "a friend of America" and "a major non-NATO ally." This is closely related to the US' international security strategy.
The second way it regards Taiwan is still constrained by the "one China" policy that has been maintained over the last 30 years, and is still tarred with the brush of the period when Taiwan was a party-controlled state. The "one China" in which the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party both believe has never actually existed. It is just a shared dream of Chiang and Mao.
Today, on one side of the Strait is the world's last communist, militaristic, imperialistic dictatorship. On the other is a new modern democracy. Surely the democratic US will not demand that the 23 million people of Taiwan seek to realize the "unification" dream that two militaristic and tyrannical political parties have long failed to achieve.
We are grateful to Yuen and Chinoy for eliciting these comments from Powell, for they reveal how absurd it is that the shackles of an artificially-created conception of "one China" should be applied to a modern democratic nation.
No fear
Finally, Taiwan should not be afraid. There will never come a day when the US joins forces with China to attack Chen. The US, as the world's most powerful democratic nation, will not stand by as the last communist imperialist nation crushes a democratic nation in order to enhance its military power. For if it did, it would destroy itself. No American will ever allow that day to come, because Americans understand that by helping Taiwan protect itself from China, Taiwan is also helping the US protect the whole free world.
In resisting the threat of the missiles deployed on China's coast, Taiwan is not just protecting itself, it is also protecting all of freedom loving humanity from the oppression of a communist dictatorship. Taiwan is using its military strength, creativity and competitiveness to contribute to a balance of power that benefits the preservation of freedom and protects human dignity. Powell surely knows that Taiwan cannot be defeated. This is the story of Taiwan's success.
Ruan Ming (
Translated by Perry Svensson, Paul Cooper and Ian Bartholomew
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