DPP’s ‘one China’ policy?
On Friday last week, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Secretary-General Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) stopped over in San Francisco and had a dinner meeting with the San Francisco Bay Area Taiwanese community. He shared with the audience stories from his routine business trip to Washington as an official representative of the party.
He said that as a representative, he is supposed to stay in Washington consistently, but with his position as secretary-general, he can only visit about once every two months or whenever it is necessary.
He said it was a productive trip to meet people and exchange messages.
He said the DPP has plenty of China policies, but none of them are the so-called “1992 consensus.”
A question about China was raised: There are three known “one China” policies: First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) says there is only “one China,” it is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is part of China; second, the Republic of China (ROC) says there is only “one China,” it is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is part of China; third, the US says there is only “one China,” the PRC is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is not part of China. What is the DPP’s “one China” policy?
Wu teased the questioner saying that there is one more policy: From Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who said: There is only “one China” and it should be added — one too many.
The DPP does not care how many Chinas there are, but believes Taiwanese sovereignty is owned by its people and the nation is already independent.
So it was puzzling for those in the audience who have studied the San Francisco Peace Treaty why Wu brought up Ko’s “one China” policy. Obviously Wu or the DPP has a better way to interpret the “status quo.” Maybe he is right and there are thousands of “one China” policies. However, as a potential governing party, the DPP needs to announce its policy and define the “status quo.”
Ko provides a constructive view of the “one China” policy. When asked about the “one country, two systems” idea, he said: Why not “two counties, one system?” Of course, the system he meant was the universal value of democracy.
When he was asked about the “one China” policy, he said it is not an issue because there is only “one China” recognized by the international community.
The “one China” policy has been repeated since the Shanghai Communique was signed and respected by the US Department of State as the firm foreign policy with which to deal with China. It specifies that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only “one China,” which has been agreed to and accepted by both the ROC and the PRC, because they are Chinese. Wu is Taiwanese, so why does he oppose it?
As Taiwanese, we should be more than happy to see the two nations shaking hands and forgetting past betrayals and thoughts of revenge with a laugh.
It has been more than half a century since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was kicked out by the Chinese Communist Party and fled to Taiwan in 1949. It is time for the ROC to go home to China and leave Taiwan alone. The ROC never owned Taiwanese sovereignty and all ROC adherents should appreciate the hospitality they have been shown all the years of their long stay in the nation.
“Worship a tree while eating its fruit, worship farms while eating rice. We need to remember the source when drinking water.”
Those in Taiwan who identify as Chinese, please have a heart and leave the nation alone.
Wu does not have the right or any need to carry the cross of civil war for China. Taiwan is not part of China. The ROC is Chinese who escaped to Taiwan as refugees in 1949 because they were defeated, but now Chinese on both sides are like brothers; it is time for them to have a reunion. Taiwan is not Chinese territory, it belongs to Taiwanese.
What is the bottom line in the DPP’s cross-strait negotiations? The KMT is a political party of China, not Taiwan, that is why it always hides behind the fabricated “1992 consensus.” Unless the DPP is also a political party of China, it should stop deceiving itself.
Taiwan is not the ROC, and the ROC is not Taiwan. It is time to endorse the US’ “one China” policy under the Three Joint Communiques (for the ROC and the PRC) and the Taiwan Relations Act (for Taiwan and the US). There is only “one China” and Taiwan is not part of it.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
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