Thu, Jul 05, 2007 page8

• Letters

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Complete rethink required

  Professor Chen Hurng-yu (陳鴻瑜) ("History creates present problems," July 2, page 8) does an excellent job of showing how initial US eagerness to win over China, whatever the price, created the impossible ambiguities and potential instabilities of the present situation. Even Henry Kissinger, former national security adviser and secretary of state to then US president Richard Nixon, seems eventually to have recognized the problem.

  On their first visits to China, both Kissinger and Nixon had accepted that "Taiwan is part of China" -- statements, top secret at the time, that did not bind the US, but were intended to indicate what future policy would be. They intended to sacrifice Taiwan in order to win over China. (The statements are found in "Transcript of February 22, 1972, Memorandum of conversation with [then Chinese premier] Zhou Enlai (周恩來) and others," document 2, page 5 -- www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/DOC_readers/kissinger/nixzhou/index.html)

  From the context, moreover, it is clear that both Kissinger and Nixon believed that the total break with Taiwan that they planned -- which would be "painful" as Kissinger repeatedly noted -- would inescapably force the island's rulers to make terms with China, within less than 10 years.

  Of course none of this went as scripted. Circumstances prevented Nixon from making the break, and when late US president Jimmy Carter finally did, the results were not as expected.

  What follows is an excerpt from a meeting on Oct. 29, 1976, that makes two facts clear. First, the US had not recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (and has not since). Second, in spite of the dramatic initiative with China four years earlier, even the distinguished statesmen gathered around the table had absolutely no plan for dealing with Taiwan, nor any clue where the island might be headed.

  "The Secretary [Kissinger, then secretary of state]: If Taiwan is recognized by us as part of China, then it may become irresistible for them. Our saying we want a peaceful solution has no force. It is Chinese territory. What are we going to do about it?

  "Mr [William] Gleysteen [then deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs]: The legal position is not tight. We would have recognized Taiwan as "part of China," not as a "Province of the [People's Republic of China] PRC."

  "The Secretary: For us to go to war with a recognized country where we have an ambassador over part of what we would recognize as their country would be preposterous.

  "Mr [Arthur] Hummel [then assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs]: Down the road, perhaps the only solution would be an independent Taiwan.

  "The Secretary: The ideal solution would be if Taiwan decided to rejoin Beijing. If they worked out something between themselves; from our point of view this would be absolutely the ideal solution.

  "Mr [Oscar] Armstrong [then director of the bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs and of People's Republic of China and Mongolia affairs]: The likelihood is small.

  "Mr Gleysteen: Yes. Unlikely."

  This is found in William Burr (ed.): The Kissinger Transcripts: The Top Secret Talks with Beijing and Moscow (New York: The New Press, 1998), pages 416 to 417.

  That meeting was held 31 years ago. Clearly the participants were baffled and at a loss as to how to proceed, though as Armstrong and Gleysteen perceived so clearly even then, the most talked about resolution -- reconciliation between Taiwan and China -- was almost certainly never going to happen. No one picked up on Hummel's prescient observation. Since then Washington, Beijing, and Taipei have managed by improvisation.

  Over those more than 30 years, Taiwan has changed completely. In 1971, the year of Kissinger's first visit,Taiwan's per capita income was US$372; in 2005 it was US$15,690. GNP moved from US$6.237 billion to US$355.4 billion. And politically Taiwan has been transformed. The country is no longer a pawn -- if indeed it ever was -- easily discarded.

  All parties contributed to the current impasse: the US through its unrealistic expectations, China through its inflexibility, and the Taiwan of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) by its unwillingness to consider dual representation. So the diplomacy of the 1970s was not so much a breakthrough solution to the issue of China, which is how it is usually presented, but rather the substitution of a new set of problems for an old one. The current extemporized arrangements cannot last forever. Sooner or later a complete rethink will be required, above all from China. But perhaps, as in the 1970s, Washington should take the lead.

  Arthur Waldron

  Lauder Professor of International Relations

  University of Pennsylvania

  Clear instance of torture

  In your editorial (July 1, page 8) you rightly point out the many flaws in the case of the Hsichih Trio. I would like to add just one further point.

  Friday's verdict is a clear instance of torture, the use of official power to bring about mental anguish.

  The only evidence presented was obtained by unregulated police interrogations (hence potentially involving mental torture). On March 27, former Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), speaking in the presence of the three men, explicitly noted that he had reformed most police interrogation facilities in Taipei to prevent such torture.

  However, by relying on evidence obtained under torture, the judge on Friday condoned the previous interrogation.

  Moreover, the judge himself had previously shown an interest in the case and thus could not be impartial. By failing to put an end to the case and let these innocent men go free, he continued their mental torture. Torture is an offence against customary international law and is always wrong.

  Edmund Ryden

  Department of Law

  Fujen University

  US needs to support Taiwan

  Recently the US State Department spoke out in opposition to the proposed referendum on Taiwan's application to join the UN under the name "Taiwan."

  This raises a few questions. Is Taiwan a democratic country? Yes. Has Taiwan been a staunch ally to the US? Yes. Is Taiwan an ally in the US-led war on terrorism? Yes. Does Taiwan belong to any other country? No.

  As a signatory of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, the US should recognize that since Japan renounced its ownership of Taiwan, the future of the country should be determined by the people who reside there.

  The US has invested considerable resources and made tremendous sacrifices in an attempt to plant the seed of democracy in Iraq. How can it then oppose Taiwan's attempt to join the UN under a name of its choosing?

  Isn't a referendum an integral part of the system that the US and other democratic countries hold dear?

  Many members of the UN are far inferior to Taiwan in terms of wealth, freedom, technology and willingness to help other less fortunate countries. As a member of the UN, Taiwan could contribute greatly to world peace and prosperity.

  US opposition to Taiwan's entry into the world body is anti-democratic and another rejection for Taiwan would be a loss to the UN. It is time the US acted to nurture Taiwan's fragile democracy by supporting the country's UN bid.

  Gaines Ho

  McLean, Virgina

  Learn from Hong Kong

  Ten years ago, when Hong Kong was handed over to China on July 1, 1997, many people were filled with fear and anxiety. To address these concerns, China trumpeted slogans such as "one country, two systems" and "no change in 50 years."

  However, although democracy activists from all walks of life in Hong Kong have campaigned for universal suffrage, China has turned a deaf ear. This has cast a dark shadow over Hong Kong's democratic development.

  China has also proposed the "one country, two systems" formula for Taiwan. Having been oppressed by China for so long, should Taiwanese put their trust in Beijing's lip service and gladly indulge ourselves in the economic benefits of a closer relationship with China?

  No. We should learn a lesson from what has happened in Hong Kong. We should be alert to China's deviousness and strengthen ourselves mentally and physically to stand up to Beijing.

  Xu Zi-Xing

  Taichung

  It might look like it is business as usual in Hong Kong these days, but it is not.

  That more than 1,000 Falun Gong adherents, mostly from Taiwan, were violently turned away at the Hong Kong airport and could not participate in the July l pro-democracy march speaks volumes. From where I sit, it sure looks like Beijing is calling the shots.

  Marie Beaulieu

  Victoria, Canada

  Missing Edward Yang

  The last time I saw Edward Yang (楊德昌) he was handsome and passionate.

  Despite everything that had happened to him and to Taiwanese cinema, he was critically optimistic. He told me that some of the young Taiwanese directors had a lot of untapped talent and could save the film industry if they decided to communicate with audiences about life, rather than only to their friends about personal pain.

  "No one has enough friends to pay for a movie!" he said.

  Yang was one-third of the great, internationally acclaimed Taiwan New Wave, along with Hou Hsiao-hsien (侯孝賢) and Tan Han-chung (但漢章). When they were young they rebelled, as all young creators must, against the equally great traditional Taiwanese directors, who used ritualistic storytelling that featured open displays of strong emotion, idealized good contrasted with uncomplicated pure evil, and clarity of dramatic points and goals.

  Later, these youngsters learned from time, frustration and wisdom to respect many of the same older directors they once scorned.

  Most real film artists suffer the same things, no matter what styles they use or what era they make films in: invisibility, "discovery," awards, media coverage, fame, being ignored, a shortage of money to make films, scorn by hungry younger directors, a short burst of media interest, praise and criticism.

  Yang made brilliant, coolly moving, searing movies. If art was powerful or those in power were just, wise and not so incredibly shortsighted, he would have made twice as many films. We are just fortunate he was able to make some. It is his life-affirming gift of love to Taiwan.

  Ron Norman

  National Taiwan

  University of Arts
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bologna advance to face AC Milan in Coppa final

  • 2

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 5

    Eric Chu, 2 others to be questioned for leading illegal assembly last week