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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS