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.
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