It is commendable that US President Barack Obama pressed Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) on human rights during Hu’s recent visit to the US, compelling him to state China’s commitment to human rights even as the two countries have different national circumstances.
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the new chairwoman of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, is to be praised for personally pressing Hu to improve “China’s deplorable human rights situation.”
However, at a luncheon for businessmen on Jan. 20, Hu declared that “Taiwan and Tibet concern China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and represent China’s core interest,” meaning they are core Chinese territory.
Hu’s statement is a grave violation of the Taiwanese people’s human rights in that it disregards their right to determine their country’s future as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 1), by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 1), by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 1) and by former US president Ronald Reagan’s 1982 assurance to Taiwan.
It ignores the undetermined international status of Taiwan, in as much as Japan, which ruled Taiwan for 50 years after China ceded it in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, “renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores” in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, but that document said nothing about to which country it ceded those territories (Treaty of Peace with Japan, Article 2b). That effectively left the treaty status of Taiwan undecided. Former US president Harry Truman and former British prime minister Anthony Eden also considered Taiwan’s international status undetermined.
Furthermore, as recently as August 2007, Dennis Wilder, former US president George W. Bush’s National Security Council senior director for Asian Affairs, said “Taiwan, or the Republic of China (ROC), is not a state in the international community and that the position of the US government is that the ROC is an issue undecided and it has been left undecided for many, many years.”
Hu’s statement runs counter to both the US’ “one China” policy and the principles of the three US-China joint communiques, to which the US abides, according to Obama. The US’ “one China” policy means there is only one China, but does not signify recognition of China’s claim that Taiwan is China’s core interest. In the February 1972 communique, the US acknowledged China’s position that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is one China and Taiwan is part of China,” but did not state the US’ position on Taiwan’s sovereignty or ultimate status. The January 1979 communique, establishing diplomatic relations between the US and the People’s Republic of China, and the August 1982 communique, dealing with US arms sales to Taiwan, maintain the same position.
More importantly, US acceptance of Hu’s statement that Taiwan is a Chinese core interest will endanger the freedom of the sea and US commercial and security interests in East Asia and the Western Pacific. As last year’s US Secretary of Defense Report to Congress points out, “China’s long-term, comprehensive transformation of its military forces is improving its capacity for force projection and anti-access and area denial,” in other words force projection to the second island chain half-way to Hawaii and denial of US access to the East, South and Southeast Asian region. It could threaten not only US interests, but the “peace, security and stability of the Western Pacific — a danger to US policy,” according to the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), US Public Law 96-8 (TRA, Sec 2a), the third foundation of US-China policy.
Obama is urged to carry out his legal obligation, namely, “the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of the people of Taiwan” (TRA, Sec 2c). He should oppose Hu’s statement that Taiwan is a Chinese core interest. He is obligated to strengthen the US’ Asian interests and to declare that Taiwan is not a part of China, that “the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of the people of Taiwan are objectives of the US” and that the US will “make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability” (TRA, Sec 3a).
Alexander Young is a professor emeritus of international relations at the State University of New York.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS