Status needs clarification

By Huang Jei-hsuan

Late last year, former US secretary of state Colin Powell caused quite a stir in Taiwan -- while greatly delighting Beijing -- when he announced that Taiwan had no sovereignty.

Given that Powell's assertion was not retracted even after vehement protests by Taiwan, it must be the US position that Taiwan doesn't have sovereignty. Also, given that -- throughout the last 33 years since former US president Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972 -- the US merely has "acknowledged" China's claim that Taiwan is part of China, it has been the US position that China doesn't hold sovereignty over Taiwan, either.

And, in line with the US' policy of maintaining ambiguity with respect to Taiwan's status, Powell didn't elaborate as to where Taiwan's sovereignty does lie.

But the US government does have an obligation to clarify this.

That's because evidence and arguments that have been brought forward through research shed new light, and are contrary to the long-held beliefs promulgated by both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party -- on several important issues.

For instance, in 1945 the Allied powers might not have had the right to bestow Taiwan -- an abandoned Japanese territory with 6 million Taiwanese living in it -- on the KMT's Republic of China (ROC).

The KMT would therefore have wrongfully -- if not illegitimately -- ruled Taiwan for half a century until 1996, when the Taiwanese people elected their own system of government.

The 1996 presidential election should be regarded as at least a prelude to a referendum for Taiwan's independent statehood. Since the presidential election represented one act a non-sovereign state couldn't do, the Taiwanese people had in essence re-affirmed twice -- once in 2000 and again last year -- that Taiwan is a sovereign state.

This is in sharp contrast to the situation in 1945 when the US used Taiwan's lack of desire and readiness to be an independent state as justification for allowing the KMT's take-over of Taiwan. The US at the time conveniently ignored that -- as a victor -- it had the responsibility to foster into independence a formerly colonized region of a defeated nation.

The US government should therefore be urged to acknowledge the illegitimacy of -- or at the minimum reveal its lingering doubts -- regarding the moral legitimacy of giving Taiwan to the ROC in 1945. This admission of a 60-year old mistake would have little immediate bearing on the status quo since international laws often only serve at the convenience of big powers.

The revelation, however, would greatly dampen international sympathy toward China's claim on Taiwan and would hopefully alleviate China's aggression.

Recently, the need for clarification might also have taken on additional significance when -- as if the cross-strait conflict's potential for expanding into a global calamity needed constant reminder -- a Chinese general brought up the nuclear option in case of the US' intervention in Taiwan.

The reason for this sudden and pugnacious outburst could be approached in several ways, but his justification for warning the US against interfering with China's "internal affairs" again played on the theme of Taiwan's lack of sovereignty.

All of these points help to illustrate that the US policy of ambiguity regarding Taiwan's current status is increasingly untenable. In fact, the lack of clarity in that respect might be contributing to instability in the region.

Conversely, the elimination of the US' ambiguity could serve to provide a starting point for Taiwan's future status, of which all essential elements could then be shaped based on a consensus forged among countries of relevance, including the US, China and Japan -- which all have vital strategic and security interests in Taiwan -- and eventually consented to by the Taiwanese people.

It's growing more evident that this international meeting of the minds is imperative to make Taiwan the anchor of regional peace, instead of the most likely hot spot for the next world war.

Taiwan was wrongfully denied sovereignty once. The international powers, especially the US, shouldn't let that happen again.

Besides, this time around, Taiwan's lack of readiness -- or desire -- to be an independent state can hardly be an excuse.

Huang Jei-hsuan

California

US report eyes China's challenge to its interests

By Alexander Chung-chih Chen

The US Department of Defense's annual report on the military power of China, following a number of delays, has finally been published. The report points out that China's military buildup appears to be geared toward preventing Taiwan's independence. More importantly, however, the report sees the rise of China as a serious challenge to the US' status as the world's superpower.

In a recent meeting in Singapore, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld articulated US concerns about China's military might and the regional military imbalance that could result from China's massive military spending. Rumsfeld pointed out that the buildup was happening even though China faces no direct threat from any nation.

From the US point of view, China's improving military capability constitutes a direct threat to its security interests. The Pentagon specifically pointed out that China now has the capacity to strike anywhere in the world with its intercontinental ballistic missiles. It stated that China's armed forces have been strengthened to the extent that they now have the capacity to conduct military operations beyond Taiwan. More importantly, given China's long-term modernization drive, the US believes that China represents a possible threat to both the US and nations in the Asia-Pacific region, pointing out that "some of China's military planners are surveying the strategic landscape beyond Taiwan."

China's military modernization is made possible by the country's fast economic growth. This growth has enabled China to develop its own improved military technologies while giving it more spending power to purchase foreign weapons and technology. In particular, Beijing is looking at ways to make its military machine less cumbersome and more dynamic. China's armed forces are now larger than they were at the time of the Korean War. Whereas China formerly relied on Russia to source advanced military equipment, it has recently turned to other nations, including the EU, to purchase equipment and technology. The Pentagon report makes quite apparent the importance of keeping in place the EU weapons embargo on China.

China is in the process of rising politically, economically, diplomatically and militarily, and the US sees China as having reached a strategic crossroads, with three possible paths to choose from. In the first, China will become peacefully integrated as a member of the international community and engage in fair competition. The second possibility is that it will play an increasingly dominant and influential role in an expanding area. The third path will see China concentrating on the challenges it faces in maintaining internal unity.

Beijing now has to make a choice between these paths. With the embers of the "China threat" theory still glowing, the choices it finally makes in response to the US strategy of military containment and diplomacy will be significant not only to Taiwan, but to the entire world.

Finally, I would contend that the main reason the report met with continuous delays was the White House was concerned that the original draft overemphasized the "China threat" theory. The final version offers a considerably watered-down presentation of this theory.

Nevertheless, the entire report is very much preoccupied with China's military rise. In other words, even though Washington makes the threat posed by China to Taiwan the point of departure, one can detect concern over the broader potential threat China represents to Asia and the US itself. And with the successful test-firing of its JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile recently, China is now very confident in its military technology.

Alexander Chung-Chih Chen is a research assistant at the Prospect Foundation.