In an opinion article published in the Taipei Times on Mar. 14 ("What exactly is the `status quo'?" page 8), also published on April 23 in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister newspaper), John Tkacik, a senior research fellow at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, said that although the US repeatedly has underscored its opposition to changes to the cross-strait status quo, Washington has never clearly defined what that status quo entails.
Tkacik believes that by not offering a clear definition of the status quo, Washington hands the initiative to Beijing and Taipei, leaving US diplomats to react passively when tensions increase.
Tkacik therefore suggests that "the US government should publicly articulate the common sense stance that the US does not recognize or accept that China has any right whatsoever under international law to use or threaten the use of force against Taiwan." He also said that "even a Taiwanese declaration of independence would just be `words on paper' and would not change any country's behavior or affect China's security posture."
This would be tantamount to telling China that the US does not recognize, and never has recognized, China's territorial claims to Taiwan.
Taiwan is a democratic and sovereign country with its own government, permanent population and defined territory. It also has its own judicial system, military and currency. The people of Taiwan pay taxes to their own popularly elected government and have never paid taxes to the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
And it extends further than taxes: When the PRC was founded in 1949, its territory did not include Taiwan, nor has it ever ruled Taiwan. It is abundantly clear that Taiwan and China are two countries, one on each side of the Taiwan Strait. The claim by the authorities in Beijing that Taiwan is part of China has no legal basis. It is a departure from reality and mere wishful thinking.
However, Beijing promotes the "one China" policy in the international community and regards Taiwan as a "renegade province." Furthermore, it repeatedly threatens to "unify" Taiwan by military force. In 2005, China passed an "Anti-Secession" Law in an attempt to legalize an invasion of Taiwan. Even so, the international community warns China not to resort to using force against Taiwan.
Tkacik's reason for suggesting that the US government clarify the meaning of the cross-strait status quo is to prevent China from adopting measures -- including the use of force -- to unilaterally change the status quo.
In reality, a clear definition by Washington of the status quo, ie, that Taiwan and China are two separate countries, would of course be conducive to regional stability and prevent Beijing from taking any rash action. However, when discussing the status quo, we should return to some of the international treaties signed after the end of the World War II to learn the ultimate truth about Taiwan's international status. Only by doing so can we crush the empty Chinese claim that "Taiwan is part of China" and once and for all resolve the issue of China's military threat against Taiwan based on legal principles and realities.
Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into effect in 1952 clearly states that: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores [Penghu]."
This article shows that Taiwan was made independent from Japan, and that it did not come under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC), the PRC, China or any other state. Prior to this, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) had been ordered by Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces General Douglas MacArthur to send his troops to Taiwan to accept Japan's surrender and take military control of Taiwan. The fact that the ROC government was defeated by the Chinese communists does not change Taiwan's status under international law.
This is the history behind Taiwan's status. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government may have blurred Taiwan's international status as an independent sovereignty during its rule, but with the democratic developments that have taken place since the late 1980s -- in particular the power transfer in 2000 -- sovereignty has come to rest with the people of Taiwan. They have since highlighted Taiwan's status ? following World War II, international treaties separated Taiwan from Japan, making it an independent country.
In fact, UN Resolution No. 2758 in 1971 expelled the representatives of Chiang, and not the representatives of Taiwan. When the US ended its diplomatic recognition of the ROC in 1979, it passed the Taiwan Relations Act and continued to sell defensive weapons to Taipei, which implies the international community's view on the status of Taiwan's sovereignty.
The US government has emphasized that its "one China" principle is different from Beijing's and it is obvious that the US does not see Taiwan as a part of China.
The status quo of Taiwan should not only be defined to avoid military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, but also to realize the spirit of the UN Charter and the International Convention on Human Rights which state that all peoples have the right to self-determination.
In the past, China was weaker, so the US was able to adopt an ambiguous strategy. Today, China's military strength and ambition has grown. Hence, clearly defining Taiwan's status quo as an independent sovereignty is the most effective and maybe even the only strategy for the US to prevent a cross-strait war and maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and the western Pacific.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Eddy Chang
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