A history lesson is required
On Dec. 10, 1898, Spain and the US signed the Treaty of Paris and according to Article I, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. With Article II Spain ceded Puerto Rico and Guam to the US, and with Article III ceded the Philippines to the US.
On April 21, 1898, the US declared war on Spain to aid the Cuban insurgency against Spanish colonial oppression. The Cuban insurgency had been raging for many years, but the US entrance into the domestic conflict meant that they were also co-belligerents of the Cuban insurgency. There was no American neutrality to be preserved and thus the conflict widened beyond a domestic conflict into a full-fledged war.
On April 20, 1898, the Teller Resolution promised Cuba independence and thus the US was obligating itself to a Cuban republic. With the establishment of the US Military Government on Cuba, it became the principle occupying authority. The Treaty of Paris had Spain cede Cuba to the occupying government, not any Cuban republic. US Congress signed the Platt Amendment on March 2, 1901, and the Republic of Cuba gained formal independence on May 20, 1902.
After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, relations between the US and Cuba deteriorated, and on Jan. 3, 1961, the US withdrew diplomatic recognition of the Cuban government.
On Oct. 22, 1962, then-US president John F. Kennedy notified Americans about the presence of Russian nuclear missiles, explained his decision to enact a naval blockade around Cuba and made it clear that the US was prepared to use military force if necessary to neutralize this perceived threat to national security. A disaster was avoided when the US agreed to then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s offer to remove the missiles in exchange for a US promise not to invade Cuba. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove US missiles from Turkey.
On Dec. 17, US President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro announced the beginning of a process to normalize relations between the US and Cuba. It ends 53 years of hostile relations. The announcement has been welcomed and supported by most Americans and Cubans.
Cuba’s 109,884km2 of territory is about three times larger than Taiwan. Taiwan’s population of more than 23 million is about twice that of Cuba. The two nations share an almost identical history, being relinquished by a peace treaty to the US Military Government.
Even today, the US military is still the principal occupying power of Taiwan under Articles 4b and 23 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Taiwanese are happy for the Cuban restoration of diplomatic recognition by the US, but they are sorry that Taiwan’s status is continually ignored by Washington.
On June 27, 1950, then-US president Harry Truman issued a statement that ended with: “The determination of the future status of Formosa [Taiwan] must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”
Peace with Japan was settled in 1952, but the San Francisco treaty’s designation of the US military as the temporary sovereign of Taiwan remains unchanged.
The Three Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act are repeatedly quoted as US policy on the Taiwan issue. The US has clearly separated China and Taiwan on written documents. The “one China” issue is now China’s issue. The Taiwan Relations Act says Taiwan is not the Republic of China (ROC). Unfortunately, most Taiwanese still think Taiwan is the ROC and the ROC is Taiwan. That illusion has trapped Taiwan, excluding it from UN membership and making it the sole political orphan in the international community.
Public opinion was made clear at last month’s nine-in-one elections. Hopefully, the younger generation can look in-depth at the core issue of Taiwan’s international status. It is time to clearly separate Taiwan from the ROC and Taiwan from China. And Obama needs to be reminded that the US has unfinished business in Taiwan. Hopefully, he can fix it before his presidency ends.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
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