|
|
|
under
way on June 17, 2004 `One
China' review under way RE-EXAMINATION:
An academic at the Heritage Foundation says the US is studying the longstanding
policy with an eye to debunking the myth that Taiwan is part of China The Bush administration
is already conducting a secret review of its "one China" policy,
although the review is fairly narrow and technical and will not necessarily
result in a decision to support Taiwan's independence, a leading Washington
Taiwan specialist says. John Tkacik, an academic at the Heritage Foundation, told the Taipei
Times that the review aims to debunk the myth that Taiwan is part of China
and to clarify just what a "one China" policy means. He was commenting on a report issued in Washington on Tuesday by the
US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which recommended that the
Bush administration and Congress "conduct a fresh assessment of the `one
China' policy, given the changing realities in China and Taiwan." "I think the State Department is already reviewing the `one China'
policy," Tkacik said. The review, he believes, began before Vice President Dick Cheney went to
Beijing in April. Even before that trip, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesmen made
it clear that Beijing would use the trip to push Washington to reassert its
"one China" policy, as well as to reduce arms sales to Taiwan. The review began when the department was briefing Cheney for the trip, and
"they are still in the throes of trying to figure out where to go with [the
policy]," Tkacik said. The first indication of the review came on April 21 in various comments
made by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly as he testified before Congress
on Taiwan policy in the wake of President Chen Shui-bian's re-election. Kelly's testimony reflected "a new boldness to address the `one China'
issue, but in very vague terms," Tkacik said. "I think it has finally hit home to them that it's not feasible to
conduct a foreign policy based on this myth, and that the foreign policy has to
be based on the values of the American people," namely, he said,
"supporting democracy and opposing tyranny." "The `one China' policy does not mean that Taiwan is part of
China," said Tkacik, who is one of Washington's most ardent supporters of
scrapping the policy. "It is simply a bumper sticker that we use to assuage
China's sensibilities while at the same time cautioning them that we don't
accept Taiwan as part of China." US-China commission chairman Roger Robinson made it clear that his panel's
recommendation stemmed in large part from China's military buildup across the
Strait and from Beijing's recent hard-line opposition to further democracy in
Hong Kong. "We think that realities on the ground have changed in a
material-enough way that warrant reassessing the `one China' policy," he
said at a press conference unveiling the group's latest report to Congress. Robinson said the panel was not trying to decide the outcome of the
assessment. "We do not have a specific goal," Robinson told reporters.
However, the fact that "Taiwan is evolving in a direction of taking a new
look at their destiny and future, Congress should be alert to the fact that we
can't have a static attitude" toward the situation. "It is not our job to prejudge how such an assessment should come out.
This is a complicated and delicate matter, and there are lots of forces and
factors that come into play," he said. He is also concerned that a reassessment might trigger a Chinese attack on
Taiwan. "That's why we're not trying to take the next step and bias an
outcome. Nobody's interested in precipitating a problem that doesn't exist
today," he said. Radicals
in PFP could sink all the pan-blues By
Chin Heng-wei Since its defeat in the presidential election, the People First Party (PFP)
has been trying to crush Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou in an attempt to salvage the
career of PFP Chairman James Soong . All this has done, however, is push the
pan-blue alliance deeper into crisis. Ma's supporters are finally rallying around him, while an army of
supporters of Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng are also falling into line.
There will no doubt be a power struggle between the "Ma army" and the
"Wang legion." This is a predictable contest within the Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT). But up against Soong and his supporters, the KMT foes
will still stand side by side in overcoming the enemy. More time is needed to say whether the "Wang legion" will prevail
over Ma. As for his own forces, prominent Ma supporters are nailing their colors
to the mast. When Taipei City Government spokesman Wu Yu-sheng registered for
the KMT legislative primary on Monday, staff at the city government wore badges
with a horse logo -- ma is Chinese for "horse." A day before
Wu's registration, Ma pledged at a lunch with members of his team that he would
tackle the difficult situation facing people today. The emergence of the
"Ma army" is now undeniable.
Meanwhile, attempting to place Ma in the PFP's line of fire, PFP Legislator
Liu Wen-hsiung lambasted him for taking advantage of the difficulties facing his
party and the country to expand his influence. Liu then compared Wang with Ma,
saying that people would remember Wang's courage in the way he went about his
business -- implying that Ma lacks a sense of mission. But whether the PFP's
criticism of Ma can lead to the PFP controlling the pan-blue alliance is a
question with one obvious answer. If the "Wang legion" prevails, Soong will then come under attack
on two fronts. Will the Soong faction then target Wang? The PFP is still clearly indulging itself in the party-state myth. Unaware
of the fact that the election results sounded the death knell for the
party-state, the PFP is still harping about a "national disaster" and
a "disaster for the party." Their quibbling only shows how out of
touch they are with public opinion. One can also say that the blue camp's defeat
marks the demise of a foreign regime and the further consolidation of Taiwan's
national identity. A "disaster for the party" is an apt expression. The question is
whether the KMT and other blue-camp elements can develop a new understanding of
this country and meet the people's needs. But if they drag the party-state myth along with them, then the PFP won't
be the only group to collapse -- the "Ma army" and the "Wang
legion" may well consign themselves to oblivion too. Chin
Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly. Tourists,
kids and naked ambition We are happy to hear
that the US government is reviewing its "one China" policy, which has
remained unchanged for more than 20 years. Although the scope of the review is
very limited, according to US scholar John Tkacik, and the chance for any major
breakthrough is slight, a small step toward changing this policy is still a
giant historical leap. According to Tkacik, US foreign policy cannot be built on a myth.
Statements by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly before the US Congress
reveal that people are beginning to recognize that the "one China"
policy is ever less relevant to the actual cross-strait relationship. Even a tourist without the slightest understanding of the Taiwan-China
relationship will see the differences: he will have to go to the Taiwanese
mission to apply for a visa, not to the Chinese embassy; he will be making
purchases with NT dollars in Taiwan, not yuan; he will find that although the
official language is Mandarin in both locations, Taiwan uses a traditional
script, and not China's simplified characters. If this visitor stays longer, he will find out that Taiwan is a democratic
country where a member of the opposition party can refuse to recognize the
government without going to jail, and that this country has its own laws and
armed forces. The situation revealed by this is that Taiwan has been a
"quasi-state" for over half a century. Most of its residents are in
fact immigrants from China. They inherited Chinese culture and have built a
society of their own on the shoulders of the Chinese culture, and have been very
proud of this achievement. Therefore, if we want to portray the current cross-strait situation with a
more precise concept, it should be the "one Chunghua" or "one
Chinese" idea proposed by Vice President Annette Lu during her US trip in
2002, and not with the "one China" idea. "Chunghua" is a cultural concept and expresses the fact that
Taiwan has inherited and continues to develop a Chinese culture. This shared
cultural foundation provides an opportunity for strengthening and improving
relations between Taiwan and China. In the four years of the president's first term, specifically since his
2000 inauguration speech, cross-strait relations didn't go anywhere because of
China's intransigence. Since Chen won a second term, things have become worse,
with China instigating hostile actions, including threats against the Chi Mei
Group and its former chairman, Hsu Wen-lung, and allowing "anti-green"
demonstrations by extremist students which resulted in the cancellation of a
concert by Taiwanese singer Chang Hui-mei in Hangzhou. Academics have made
public remarks about China potentially using economic sanctions against Taiwan,
causing Taiwan's stock market to plummet. This is possibly the most hopeless the cross-strait situation has ever
been. Part of the reason is that pro-green people in Taiwan have always been
reluctant to admit and be proud of their Chinese heritage, creating the
impression around the world that pro-greens are unfriendly toward China. Another
reason is China's refusal to face the transformations of Taiwan's society. Those who govern should be more sensitive to the times than ordinary people
if they are to look ahead and plan policy. People who have this sensitivity and
foresight are called statesmen. We need someone to terminate the hopelessness of
the present cross-strait situation. It is best if the US, China and Taiwan work together, but the key is for a
child unafraid to speak the truth to point out that "The emperor is not
wearing any clothes!" It needs to be pointed out that "one China"
is simply a lie.
|
|
|
