|
|
|
Overdue
on June 20, 2004 US'
`one China' review overdue By
the Liberty Times editorial The US State
Department's US-China Economic and Security Review recently recommended a US
reassessment of the "one China" policy. Given China and Taiwan's changing situations, the policy's viability,
success and future should be reviewed. Also deserving of review is the topic of how the US can improve its support
of Taiwan's national defense, and how it can help Taiwan break through its
international economic isolation resulting from China's stranglehold. The US report notes growing doubts concerning China's ability to find a
peaceful resolution to the Taiwan question given its recent conduct toward
Taiwan and Hong Kong. Similar doubts are growing regarding its promise to give
Hong Kong autonomy. As China's strength grows, its Asian neighbors are concerned that the US
war on terrorism is causing the West to show less interest in the region. The "one China" principle embodies China's ambitions for
sovereignty over Taiwan, and is a formula used to block Tai-wan's international
recognition.
Yet in the real world, "one China" incorporating Taiwan just
doesn't exist, except as a baseless myth. China insists that "There is only one China in the world, and both
China and Taiwan belong to that one and same China" -- even though the
Chinese Communist Party that now rules Beijing had itself advocated independence
for the Japanese colonies of Taiwan and Korea during the Yenan Period
(1935-1945). The People's Republic of China has never had control over Taiwan in its
half-century in existence. Taiwan and its people have never paid taxes to this
Chinese government, nor have they enlisted in its armed forces. The two nations have been separate for these 50 years, and it wasn't until
18 years ago, when Taiwan started allowing war veterans to return to China to
visit their relatives, that any kind of interaction between the two sides was
even allowed. Surely this is sufficient evidence for the existence of two countries, not
"one China." Even older evidence against "one China" is known by every
schoolchild: the Qing government suffered a defeat at the hands of the Japanese
in 1894, and the following year signed a treaty permanently ceding Taiwan to
Japan. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty after World War II, Japan merely gave
up sovereignty of Taiwan -- and this sovereignty was at no time ceded to China. From the point of view of international law, Taiwan's status remains
unsettled, and China was certainly never given the right to rule it. In 1945, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government appeared on
their shores, the Taiwanese saw them as a foreign power who were to use Taiwan
as a base from which to retake the mainland. This, however, did not change the
fact that Taiwan's sovereignty did not belong to China. Since the KMT government was thus a foreign government, the PRC is even
more so, and "one China" is nothing but an illusion. This illusion has material consequences for Taiwan, whose people are
internationally isolated and whose government is a diplomatic orphan. Yet in
spite of this illusion, the Taiwanese are building on the reality of their
freedom, embarking on reforms toward democracy and localization, and uprooting
the lie that Taiwan is a part of China. Yet the "one China" policy was adopted decades ago by Taiwan's
main supporter in the international community, the US. Although the US supports Taiwan's participation in international
organizations, its policies are restricted by the outdated commitment to the
"one China" policy. As other nations also bow to this fiction in order
to curry favor with China, Taiwan is even excluded from the World Health
Organization and other bodies it has much to offer. So it is indeed encouraging that the US-China Economic and Security Review
urges a State Department reassessment of the "one China" policy. This
could be a pivotal step in helping Taiwan throw off the constrictions placed on
it by China. The US' "one China" policy originated from former US secretary of
state Henry Kissinger's secret trip to China and was officially adopted in the
Shanghai Communique when then US president Richard Nixon visited China in 1972. America declared in this statement that "the US acknow-ledges that all
Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and
that Taiwan is a part of China." The US later reaffirmed this stance in the
Sino-US normalization communique of 1979 and the Aug. 17 communique of 1982.
This policy is a product of Cold War ideology, where a line was clearly drawn
between capitalist and communist states. But a crack appeared between the Chinese and Russian communists, leading
Kis-singer to unite with China against the Soviet Union in the name of pursuing
a balance of power in diplomacy. Under this strategy, active Sino-US cooperation pushed a formerly closed
China to gradually open, but the US made too many concessions to China regarding
cross-strait relations. Now the US finds itself trapped by the "one China" policy, a
32-year-old bargaining chip no longer relevant to the cross-strait situation --
or to global diplomacy, for that matter. The Soviet Union has collapsed, and it's unnecessary for the US to unite
with China against Russia. Due to China's military expansion, US strategic
interests increasingly conflict with those of China. Washington should not step
back anymore. Taiwan was still under an authoritarian foreign regime in 1972, but
democracy has taken root and "native consciousness" has become
mainstream opinion. The statement that "all Chinese on either side of the
Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of
China" was merely the wishful thinking of the then leaders of the KMT and
the Chinese Communist Party. It cannot represent the stance of the Taiwanese
people, nor reflect the status quo on Taiwan. The US' "one China" policy does specify peaceful negotiations
regarding the cross-strait issue, yet China has never given up its ambition to
attack Taiwan with force. For decades, but particularly in recent weeks, not
only has Beijing threatened Taipei verbally, but it has carried out reckless
military drills against Taiwan and even fired ballistic missiles to threaten the
island. For the US to continue to mouth the "one China" policy that
rationalizes this violence is the same as "helping a tyrant to do
evil," as a Chinese saying goes. Genuine peace can come only from a balanced triangular relationship among
Taiwan, China and the US. What has unbalanced the triangle is China's oppression
of Taiwan, and the US cannot assist Taiwan as long as it is in thrall to
Beijing's "one China" policy. China has shown its ambition to attack Taiwan by force even as "native
consciousness" became mainstream opinion here. The US can sell weapons to
Taiwan in order to help it defend itself, as US President George W. Bush
promised. Nevertheless, Washington must change the outdated "one China"
policy to ensure self-determination for the 23 million Taiwanese people. Rhetoric
versus reality
This is part of a wider problem with the West irresponsibly selling
military equipment and training to undemocratic countries and organizations. However, what Lee Long-hwa fails to address in his letter (Letters, June
15, page 8) is that America is undoubtedly the leader in this respect. The figures are shocking. Despite the rhetoric of being the guardian of
peace and democracy in the world, the US has supplied arms or military
technology in about 90 percent of world conflicts in recent years. In the 1990s, around three-quarters of US arms sales were to undemocratic
countries. While Lee is quite legitimately concerned about America's safety if China
were to receive arms from Europe, perhaps he should consider what the effects of
his own country's sales have been. The US armed and trained Osama bin Laden, and gave military aid to former
Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, even after US intelligence reports indicated he
was persecuting Kurds in Iraq. If the EU is prepared to sell its soul to the
devil, then the US has been guilty of helping to create a few devils. And what about the rest of the world? Developing nations spend twice as
much on the military as on health, and millions of people are dying each year as
a result. And did you know, Lee, that you are probably paying for this? Yes, the US
arms industry is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. Thankfully, there were enough responsible countries in Europe to block
France and Germany's desires. What we need is an international agreement on international arms sales,
where countries would have to sacrifice profits for peace. Given America's rhetoric, perhaps it should be taking the lead. As then US president Jimmy Carter put it in 1976, "we [the US] cannot
have it both ways. We can't be both the world's leading champion of peace and
the world's leading supplier of arms." Philip
Wallbridge Taipei
|
|
|
