Taiwan suffers constantly at the hands of lazy journalists and politicians. This is especially evident regarding the China problem and the triangular relations between Taiwan, China and the US, and the phrase "one China."
Few journalists or politicians take the time to try to understand things like the 1972 Shanghai Communique and subsequent US statements. Even fewer have the courage to say what is really there. Does that make them "useful idiots?" Perhaps, but I prefer to simply use the phrase "lazy journalists and politicians."
This is what happens around the world, in organizations like the WHO and what happened in Irvine, California. Irvine's politicians and its mayor, eager to make a quick deal and some fast bucks, readily accepted the "one China" position of the People's Republic of China (PRC). They intentionally or unknowingly acted as if the PRC version of "one China" was the same as that of the US. They then tried to pass it off as official. Lazy, collaborative or downright deceptive, you can make the call.
The PRC of course is always asking the US to repeat the Shanghai Communique's commitment, hoping that somehow, sometime, someone will be stupid, drunk or lazy enough to make a slip of the tongue, use the wrong phrase, so that Beijing can say the US has changed its policy. Former US president Bill Clinton slipped up once with his three noes, but not irrevocably. It did not become policy. Lazy journalists, however. slip up all the time and this is what makes it bad for Taiwan.
In item 11 of the Shanghai Communique the Chinese side reaffirmed its position: It opposes "one China, one Taiwan," "one China, two governments," "two Chinas," an "independent Taiwan," or any activities that advocate that "the status of Taiwan remains to be determined."
In item 12 , the US declared its position: "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position."
At that time, Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) regime controlled Taiwan and thought that the "one China" belonged to them, while Beijing thought that the "one China" belonged to them. The US did not state who it thought was the "sole legal government" was, but it kept its embassy in Taipei.
The crucial wording, however, is what followed -- that the US government "does not challenge that position." To not challenge something does not mean that one endorses it or rejects it, one simply does not challenge it. If two sides agree to disagree, then the points where they disagree are not going to be contested or challenged; they have already agreed to disagree.
When the US prepared to transfer its embassy from Taipei to Beijing in January 1979, a joint communique was released on Dec. 15, 1978. Item 2 stated: "The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan." In the eyes of the US, Chiang's government had lost its claim to be the government of "one China."
The kicker in that second communique came in Item 7. "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." However, the US did not commit to what one China was.
The wording "acknowledges the Chinese position" is crucial. It is an acknowledgement; it is neither an endorsement nor a rejection. Both sides have continued to agree to disagree. In reality, the US has purposely avoided spelling out its position. What it has endorsed is that it wants the whole matter to be settled peacefully. The subsequent Taiwan Relations Act went into more detail on this.
Lazy journalists cue off of this ambiguity and simply state that the US has a "one China" policy when in reality it has a policy of acknowledging that Beijing has a position on this matter.
A legal reason why the US may remain vague on the "one China" issue and Taiwan is implied by Frank Chiang (江永芳), a professor at Fordham Law School, in his recent article ("Taiwan is an abandoned territory," Aug. 10, page 8). He explains: "Taiwan is currently an abandoned territory of Japan, over which no country has a legitimate claim. The US cannot claim title to the island of Taiwan unless the people of Taiwan, as the collective owners of the island, request the US to take the island." He concludes, that Taiwan's future is its choice and no one else's.
Another clear example of lazy journalism is the one-sided phrases used in reporting on cross-strait issues. Who has not heard newscasters like CNN's Mike Chinoy and others prattling on about China? When Taiwan is mentioned, the stock phrase appears: "Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province." Fair game, for that is what China considers Taiwan. Unfortunately, these journalists never say what Taiwan thinks of China.
Wouldn't it be fair to respond in the same vein every time these journalists speak of the PRC? They could add a similar stock phrase such as, "the People's Republic of China, which Taiwan considers a grasping, corrupt totalitarian state ruled by control freaks with a warped sense of history." A bit long, but you get the idea. It is time reporters got off their duffs and started giving both sides of the story. It is time they gave Taiwan a fair shake.
If, like an independent, democratic sovereign state, Taiwan taxes its citizens, has defined boundaries, elects its officials and has a standing army, then it is an independent, democratic sovereign state. Are there any reporters or politicians out there with courage enough to say it?
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS