Following criticism from several US officials on Taiwan's UN referendum, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed her opposition recently, calling it a provocative policy.
On the surface, as Rice reaffirmed, the US has "a one China policy and we do not support independence for Taiwan." But, in fact, the US is currying favor with China.
This brings to mind what former US secretary of state John Dulles said at the signing ceremony of the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China (ROC) in 1954. Taiwan and Penghu had not been put on the international bargaining table, and, because of the lack of a treaty, some had the impression that the US was using Taiwan as a bargaining chip in exchange for Chinese concessions. But the treaty showed Washington would not sell out Taiwan.
Unfortunately, in February 1972, then US president Richard Nixon made a deal with China and sold out Taiwan, even though the treaty had not been terminated, settling on a "one China" policy with then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來). Nixon also said that Taiwan was a part of China, and claimed that this was based on the Cairo Declaration.
Before the Korean War, US president Harry Truman and secretary of state Dean Acheson also said that Taiwan should be returned to China based on the Cairo Declaration under the "one China" policy, and in so doing used Taiwan as a bargaining chip.
Truman did not abandon this policy until the Korean War started in June 1950. He then changed his tone by saying that Taiwan's status was undecided, and that it should be determined by either the UN or in the peace treaty signed with Japan in 1951 in San Francisco.
The problem was that between the signing of the peace treaty and the review of the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report in which it was confirmed that the US, the UK and the ROC agreed that the Cairo Conference restored Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC. As the report clearly states: "At the Cairo Conference in 1943, [US] President [Franklin] Roosevelt, [British] Prime Minister [Winston] Churchill, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (
Hence, when the US Department of Justice described Taiwan-US relations to a district court in Washington on April 5 this year, officials said that, based on the report, "prior to 1979, it was the policy of the United States that the ROC included Taiwan."
But what about after 1979, when the US and the ROC severed ties?
According to the implications of this passage, as well as US recognition of the People's Republic of China (PRC), the PRC includes Taiwan. Based on this logic, the Taiwan desk at the US Department of State said in June: "The sovereignty of Taiwan is a question to be decided peacefully by the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait."
So, the people of Taiwan cannot make the decision on their own. This neatly sums up the nation's predicament.
The Cairo Declaration was merely a press release, and not signed by anyone.
Roosevelt and Churchill objected to the return of Taiwan and Penghu to China, while Roosevelt even requested that China follow the Atlantic Charter so that Taiwan could declare independence and opt for self-determination if it wanted to.
Today, having bought the lies from Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Sim Kiantek is a former associate professor in the Department of Business Administration at National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by 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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS