Tue, Mar 14, 2006 page8

• US should back Taiwanese people

  • By Chen Hurng-yu 陳鴻瑜
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  At a recent international symposium, academics from a number of Southeast Asian nations criticized Taiwan for its diplomatic bias toward the US, suggesting that Taiwan should stand together with Southeast Asian nations.

  But Taiwan must take into account current realities, and cannot easily break its reliance on the US. The major difference between Taiwan and Southeast Asian nations today is that Taiwan is clearly under threat from China, something that Southeast Asian nations do not currently face. To survive, Taiwan has no choice but to follow the US line.

  We can see from past experience that the US has lived up to its promise of supporting Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act. The US support for Taiwan is grounded in history. The then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government advocated the structure of "one country, two governments" in its cross-strait policies, but the US did not publicly say whether it supported this or not. It's policy was not to interfere in cross-strait affairs nor to play the role of a mediator between Taiwan and China.

  But when former US president Bill Clinton made an official visit to Shanghai in June 1998, he announced the new "three noes" policy, which rejected Taiwanese independence, the "one China, one Taiwan" position, and Taiwan's membership in the UN. This was the beginning of the US tilt towards China.

  Clinton's policy echoed the Sino-US Joint Communique of Aug. 17, 1982. The communique stated: First, the US recognized the Chinese government as the sole legal government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

  Second, the US government attached great importance to its relations with China, and reiterated that it had no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China's internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan."

  In making this agreement, the US showed a complete lack of respect for Taiwan's government. On what grounds did the US have the right to discuss Taiwan's international status? Taiwan is not a colony of the US, and it had maintained diplomatic ties with the US for years prior to the end of 1978.

  Does the fact that the US broke off diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979 give the US the right to negotiate with China on the issue of Taiwan's international status? Although the US is still obliged under the Taiwan Relations Act to help Taiwan defend itself, does this give the US the right to bargain with China over Taiwan?

  The past US failures in interfering in Southeast Asian nations are instructive. The US interventions in the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam failed, and its support for the Rhee Syngman government in South Korea, and the Ngo Dinh Diem government and the Nguyen Van Thieu government did not prevent these administrations from falling. All of these failures were the result of excessive political interference in the internal affairs of other nations.

  After the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the US supported democratic nations in order to counter the communist regimes. US human rights diplomacy also won support in the region, so that even former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohammed, despite his strong position on Asian values, brought human-rights legislation into effect during his term.

  Another example is that after the collapse of the Suharto government, the Indonesian government also adopted a human rights policy. As for China, it continues to reject human rights.

  Without a doubt, since the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), Taiwan has seen an improvement in its human rights awareness. But Taiwan's cross-strait policy is still constrained by the influence of conservatives. To placate the conservatives, Lee established the National Unification Council (NUC) and promulgated the Guidelines for National Unification (GNU) during his term. But, in fact, the NUC was little more than a statement of intent. A similar example was the abolishment of the Chinese reunification committee after the termination of the National Assembly.

  It is interesting, however, to see that when the legislature on Jan. 1 this year abolished the National Assembly Representatives Election Law (國民大會代表選舉法), the legal foundation for this institution, which had already been suspended, was completely abolished.

  And if the National Assembly was abolished, then the committee set up to design the "retaking of the Chinese mainland" set up by the National Assembly was also abolished. The opposition had nothing to say about these changes, nor did the US pay any mind.

  The reason is the impossibility that Taiwan could ever "retake the mainland."

  When it came to the cessation of the National Unification Council, however, the opposition showed deep concern, as did the US. Does the US want Taiwan to be ruled by China? What is the US position? It is incomprehensible.

  The cessation of the NUC is a domestic matter for Taiwan. It is none of the US' or China's business. China's interference is at least understandable. Ever since Taiwan held its first direct presidential election, China has interfered with every instance of Taiwan exercising its sovereignty. But why does the US have to dance to China's tune? As a sovereign and independent state, the US shouldn't listen to China's attempts to seduce the US into harming Taiwan.

  After World War II, the US adopted some mistaken policies toward Taiwan. First, before the end of the war, the US ignored the will of the Taiwanese people and handed Taiwan over to China. At the Japanese Peace Treaty Conference in San Francisco in 1951, representatives from several countries said that the voice of the Taiwanese people should be heard. Second, the US ignored the 228 Incident perpetrated by the KMT government. The US should have condemned this shameful incident.

  As a colonized people, Taiwanese should enjoy the right of national self-determination guaranteed by the UN. The US, however, turned a deaf ear and ignored the issue. For its own strategic needs, the US assigned Taiwan the status of an abandoned territory.

  In this way it could continue to interfere in cross-strait matters and oppose the further spread of communism. But this meant adopting an uncompromising position, and the US eventually had to resort to war to protect its regional security interests.

  Beginning in the mid-1950s, voices were heart once again in the international community saying that the people of Taiwan should be given the right of national self-determination. US leaders still did nothing, though the US continued to stick to the policy of militarily defending Taiwan and opposing China. The US forced the government and people of Taiwan to serve US strategic goals.

  When the US tried to pull out of the Vietnam quagmire, Chinese pressure made the US strike a deal whereby the US agreed to sever diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The people of Taiwan felt betrayed, but the government nevertheless continued to show a high degree of friendship to the US. The feelings of the Taiwanese people after this event is not something that can be easily described.

  It was the international situation that made the US establish diplomatic relations with China, and since China is a big country, it would have been wrong not to do so. US leaders should, however, form a clear understanding of whether or not it was necessary to sacrifice Taiwan to engage in exchanges with China or set up diplomatic relations between the two countries.

  What kind of cross-strait relationship does the US think Clinton's "three noes" set up? According to the US itself, it does not advocate "one China, one Taiwan," nor does it advocate "two Chinas" or Taiwan independence. So do they advocate a Chinese annexation of Taiwan? Does the US stress a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue? What does this "peaceful resolution" entail? Surely a referendum must count as a "peaceful resolution."

  The US, however, is under pressure from China to oppose Taiwan holding such a referendum. What other possibilities are there, apart from a referendum? A unilateral declaration by the Taiwanese government that unites it with China? Would the US agree with that? That may not be what the US wants to see, either. The US does not want any of the above options. So what is the US' ultimate stance on the Taiwan issue?

  Taiwan's situation has changed. After the dissolution of the authoritarian state, the Taiwanese people's self-awareness has been awakened. The number of people advocating independence or self-determination is increasing constantly. They are dissatisfied with the "status quo" and they demand the right to decide their own future. They are getting increasingly tired of the US.

  When President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) declared the cessation of the NUC, he was dealing with a domestic Taiwanese issue. The legislature had already eliminated its budget and it had not been operational since Chen became president in 2000. The liquidation of an organization without any legal foundation is reasonable. I think that the US, a country under the rule of law, would have done the same thing.

  It is regrettable, however, that people around the world know that it is China's pressure on the US that makes the US interfere with Taiwan's domestic affairs and allows the State Department's spokesperson to publicly interfere with Taiwan's government. Not only does this have a negative impact on the US' international image, but it also arouses dissatisfaction among the people of Taiwan.

  A great power like the US should discuss sensitive issues with Taiwan's officials behind closed doors, not in public. Since the US' professed reason for opposing the cessation of the NUC was that it will damage the "status quo," we must ask why the US government thinks that the "Anti-Secession" Law passed by China last year doesn't also have a negative impact on the cross-strait "status quo." Such standards carry very little persuasive power in Taiwan.

  It is still unclear in what way the US wants to handle the Taiwan issue. It does not recognize Taiwan as a state, nor does it recognize Taiwan as part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.

  It also does not want to give the people of Taiwan the right to decide their own future, nor does it support Taiwanese independence. Does it want the passage of time itself to resolve the issue, or does it want to continue using Taiwan as leverage in its dealings with China?

  Public opinion in Taiwan is changing, and the US should pay attention to this development. It should stop pressuring Taiwan as a way of dealing with the cross-strait issue.

  Instead, it should propose a new model: it should tell the world in public that the will of the people of Taiwan should be respected. I believe that this is also the founding spirit of the US, and that no conscientious US leader would suppress Taiwan in order to suck up to China.

  Chen Hurng-yu is a professor in the department of history at National Chengchi University.

  Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Perry Svensson
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Typhoon Usagi expected to brush past Taiwan

  • 2

    Land warning issued for Typhoon Usagi

  • 3

    Videos about Taiwan upset China: source

  • 4

    First new MRT line train arrives

  • 5

    Taiwan in Time: The rise and fall of Taipei’s sky bridges