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.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS