US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent trip to Japan, South Korea and China shows that some deep-seated misconceptions exist with regard to Taiwan and its international status.
While it should be appreciated that Powell urged Beijing to ac-knowledge President Chen Shui-bian's (
In any case, the Chinese authorities rejected Chen's call for cross-strait talks, after which Powell gave them an earful about US plans to sell defensive wea-pons to Taiwan -- an obvious move to counter the military buildup on Beijing's part.
But it was his subsequent remarks which got him into hot water with Taiwan. In an interview with CNN Asia correspondent Mike Chinoy, he stated: "We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would pre-judice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking."
This second part of this remark is simply false because the "party" that is most directly concerned -- the people of Taiwan -- overwhelmingly reject reunification. In most recent opinion polls, less than 10 percent of those interviewed supported reunification (even if China would become democratic). In any case, reunification is a misnomer, since Taiwan was never part of the People's Republic of China in the first place.
Furthermore, "reunification" has never been part of US policy either. It does not appear in the Taiwan Relations Act or in any other US policy statement regarding Taiwan. In fact, for the past six administrations, the US has been neutral on the eventual status of Taiwan. The US has only emphasized that it should be a peaceful resolution, and more recently added "with the consent of the people of Taiwan."
Of course, this is not the first time that a high-ranking US official has made this kind of error. In 1998, former president Bill Clinton fell into the same trap. During a speech at Pekjing University, he said that US policy is "no obstacle to peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan."
Every so often the US State Department emphasizes that US policy toward Taiwan is clear. Well, if it is so clear, then why do presidents and the secretaries of state make such blunders?
Adding insult to injury, Powell said in a later interview with Phoenix TV: "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
Someone needs to remind Powell that sovereignty as a nation does not depend on US recognition. This is stated in the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, signed by the US on Dec. 26, 1933, which stipulates that "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
This convention contains the universally-accepted doctrine that a "state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a permanent population; a defined territory; government and capacity to enter into relations with the other states."
Taiwan fulfills all of these qualifications.
The problem of Taiwan's non-recognition does not stem from the fact that it is not a nation-state -- it is a nation-state by any definition of the term -- but from the fact that for decades the previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration continued to claim itself to be the rightful government of all of China.
This outdated claim was perpetuated until the early 1990s, but was increasingly not recognized internationally. One still finds its anachronistic remnants in the formal name of the country ("Republic of China"), its flag, national anthem, and history and geography books, as well as the names of some of the national companies, such as China Petroleum Co, China Steel Corp and China Airlines.
Thus, if Taiwan is to gain international recognition as a free and democratic nation, it needs to rid itself of these peculiar remnants of the KMT's China-oriented rule. The KMT left China more than 50 years ago. It is time to look toward the future and work toward Taiwan's membership in the international family of nations as a full and equal member.
In the meantime, Powell would do well to study up on US policies toward Taiwan. The present policy basically is that the US favors a peaceful resolution and does not take a position on the eventual outcome. More recently, the US has also added "the consent of the people of Taiwan" as a determining factor.
Still, that is not good enough: the "one China" mantra is an outdated relic, which is based on the situation in the 1970s, and has not taken into account the new reality that Taiwan has evolved from a repressive KMT authoritarian regime (claiming sovereignty over China) in the 1970s to a vibrant and open Taiwanese democracy in the 21st century.
It's time for a change in policy which aims at normalizing US and Western European diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Chen Mei-chin is editor of Taiwan Communique, an international publication based in Washington.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS