Readers might find former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger's op-ed piece in the Washington Post of interest ("China: Containment Won't Work," June 13).
I will leave it to others to comment on Kissinger's prescriptions for US policy on China, which aim to "witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress."
And as for his statement that, "The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years," we might want to ask the Tibetans and Uighurs about that -- to mention only two peoples within China's present territory.
But I am more concerned with Kissinger's statement that, "Despite substantial US arms sales to Taiwan, Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles: American recognition of the one-China principle and opposition to an independent Taiwan; China's understanding that the United States requires the solution to be peaceful and is prepared to vindicate that principle; restraint by all parties in not exacerbating tensions in the Taiwan Strait."
Surely you jest, Mr. Kissinger.
You were there at its creation, so you know full well that the Shanghai Communique never said that the US "recognizes" Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China. "Acknowledges" is the word that was used, and with clear intent to show that the US knew this was Beijing's position but that the US did not ratify this position. Testimony in hearings before Congress by numerous State Department officials over the years have underscored this point.
I believe that anyone reading the Kissinger article would come away with the clear idea that the US recognizes Beijing's claim to Taiwan as part of China. But this is simply not so.
Kissinger also claims that Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles, one of which is US recognition of the "one China" principle.
Maybe Kissinger & Associates deals with its China business interests based on this principle. But the US government does not.
In hearings before Congress, the Bush administration has been clear about the fact that the US has a "one China" policy and that this is distinct from China's "one China" principle. The US "one China" policy recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and states that any resolution of the Taiwan question must be resolved peacefully, by mutual agreement and, because Taiwan is a democracy, with the consent of the people of Taiwan.
The US is agnostic on the sovereignty question, deeming it to be unresolved. The "one China" principle is China's formulation and reflects the earlier statement by Kissinger of "recognition" of the Chinese claim that Taiwan is part of China.
US President George W. Bush may have said in private conversations with Chinese officials that he opposes Taiwan's independence. The Chinese press has certainly reported this as if it were fact. But the State Department has adamantly said that the US position on this issue has not changed, namely that the US does not support Taiwan's independence.
Read the Kissinger transcripts of his conversations with former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) and Mao Zedong (毛澤東) in 1971 and you will see that Kissinger dearly wanted to close a deal, and was willing to give private assurances to the Chinese leaders about Taiwan that went far beyond the text of the communique.
But private assurances are not policy, and Kissinger's attempt to rewrite US policy in his opinion piece does nothing to enhance the peaceful resolution of cross-strait tension.
Michael Fonte
Democratic Progressive Party liaison 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