Time to wake up
US President Obama on Friday held a joint news conference with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at the White House. He highlighted six topics: the US-China economic relationship, climate commitments, security in the Asia-Pacific region, international security, human rights and the connections between the people of the US and China.
Under the third topic Obama specified: “I reiterated my strong commitment, as well, to our ‘one China’ policy based on the Three Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act” and Xi accepted it without objection.
What does this mean to Taiwanese? Why are the Three Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act always combined together under the “one China” policy?
The US agrees and recognizes that there is only one China and it is the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which means the Republic of China (ROC) is no more, but Taiwan still does not belong to China.
The US officially derogated the ROC in the Taiwan Relations Act, which took effect on Jan. 1, 1979. The ruling government on Taiwan today is officially known by the US as the “Governing Authority on Taiwan” and the ROC does not even qualify as the “Chinese government in exile.”
Unfortunately, Taiwanese have firmly believed in the ROC for years. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) says the ROC is an independent nation with sovereignty over Taiwan, China and Mongolia. However, KMT members always refer themselves as government officials from Taiwan while traveling around the world and dare not mention the ROC in front of the PRC — they just consider it an authority to fool Taiwanese.
The worst part is that it has been taken for granted and endorsed by a majority of politicians in Taiwan — even the Democratic Progressive Party says Taiwan is the ROC and the ROC is Taiwan.
If Taiwan is the ROC, that means Taiwan belongs to China because the ROC is also known as China, but the only officially recognized China today is the PRC.
Xi on Saturday addressed the UN on behalf of China, even though the ROC’s name is still listed as the original member state on the UN Charter. However, in UN Resolution 2758 it was succeeded by the PRC, just like the names of some of the other founding members have changed — the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the Russian Federation, and the Philippine Commonwealth is the Philippines.
The ROC is simply a part of history. As long as we insist on naming Taiwan as the ROC, we voluntarily offer it to the PRC.
Most of KMT heavyweights such as former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) kowtow to the PRC and know the ROC is dead and it is only a puppet they use to fool Taiwanese to extend their rule over Taiwan and to suck the resources out of the nation.
The legal documents they use to back their nonsense are the Cairo Declaration and the Treaty of Taipei. The Cairo Declaration is nothing but a radio news communique and the Treaty of Taipei is simply a sub-treaty of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which specified the US Military Government as the principal occupying power of Taiwan. China was not named as the recipient of Taiwan’s sovereignty.
That is why the US Congress had authority to pass the Taiwan Relation Act to regulate the US executive branch to maintain peace, security and stability in the Western Pacific between the US and Taiwan.
There is no international treaty authorizing China as the sovereign of Taiwan.
Obama went on to say that even as the US recognizes Tibet as part of the PRC, it continues to encourage the Chinese authorities to preserve the religious and cultural identity of Tibetans, and to engage the Dalai Lama and his representatives.
The US recognizes that China holds sovereignty over Tibet, but it has never accepted the PRC’s claims of ownership over Taiwan.
Taiwanese are really at the crossroads of national recognition. Should Taiwanese continue to pledge allegiance to the ROC? Or should they set their feet down to seek recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty? Does Taiwan really belong to the ROC? Is the ROC really an independent nation with sovereignty? Does Taiwan have its own sovereignty? Who owns it today?
The US government has repeatedly said that Taiwan is not the ROC under the Taiwan Relation Act and the ROC is not Taiwan under the “one China” policy. How many more times does the US need to repeat this?
It is time for Taiwanese to wake up and get rid of the ROC. Taiwan is not part of China; it is not the ROC and neither is it the PRC.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)