US may
launch Taiwan Policy Review
TIME FOR RE-THINK?: A full
Taiwan Policy Review was first conducted in 1979 after Washington shifted
recognition to Beijing, with a second taking place 15 years later
By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Friday, Apr 24, 2009, Page 1
Washington may soon launch a new Taiwan Policy Review that could have an
enormous impact on bilateral relations.
While there have been no official announcements and foreign policy advisers
close to both US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US President Barack
Obama refuse to discuss the subject, there are increasing rumors and
speculation.
The Taipei Times has been told by senior congressional sources that a formal
review is being considered by the Obama administration but that no decision has
been made.
And Professor David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy Program at George
Washington University, wrote earlier this month that there was a “growing
discussion” in Washington of the need to undertake a thorough Taiwan Policy
Review “given the dramatic and positive changes in cross-strait relations.”
Significantly, such a review would come at a time when Shambaugh — one of the
most-respected China scholars in Washington — said that the Sino-US relationship
appeared to be the best it has been in the 20 years since the “traumatizing”
Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989.
In a paper for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Shambaugh said that
resuming military-to-military exchanges with Beijing was a high priority for the
Obama administration and recent bilateral discussions suggested such exchanges
were slowly resuming.
“Concerning Taiwan, Washington is pleased with the trajectory of the issue since
[President] Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) election. Cross-strait relations have
substantially stabilized in all spheres. Of course, the real issue for the US in
this area is the continuing buildup of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan [now
1,000-plus], the large conventional force deployments in this theater and the
continuing PLA exercises that simulate attack scenarios against the island,” he
said.
“It would be politically astute for Beijing to unilaterally freeze all three as
a goodwill gesture to enhance confidence on Taiwan and advance the process of
cross-strait rapprochement. Doing so would put pressure on Washington to
reconsider the rationale for a new arms package, i.e. whether it sends official
notification to Congress of its intent to carry through on the [former US
president George W. Bush] administration’s October 2008 declaration of intent to
sell,” he wrote.
A full Taiwan Policy Review was first conducted in 1979 after the US shifted
recognition to Beijing.
The second such review was not held until 15 years later under former US
president Bill Clinton in 1994.
It was said at that time that the new Taiwan policy would “strike the right
balance between Taipei and Beijing, laying the basis for further expanding
relations with both while ensuring continued peace and stability in the Taiwan
Strait.”
The Obama administration might well argue that another review would be timely.
Shambaugh said in his paper that while the “chronic problem” of Taiwan was at
low ebb and East Asia was at peace (notwithstanding the North Korean nuclear
problem) — the path was clear for the US and China to focus on regional and
global cooperation.
“To be sure, the Taiwan issue remains potent and as long as the arms sales issue
hangs over the relationship, bilateral relations are not fully normalized,” he
said.
It is not clear, Shambaugh said, exactly what Clinton and the White House have
in mind concerning initiating arms control talks with China.
“Presumably it means that they are interested in negotiating some kind of
strategic arms ceilings with China. If so, the Obama administration is likely to
run up against the longstanding Chinese position that the US and Russia must
first radically reduce the tens of thousands of warheads in their arsenals below
1,000 on each side before China will even consider joining such negotiations,”
he said.
Beijing has 400-plus nuclear warheads but only several dozen deployed on its
30-plus intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Shambaugh said that China was hoping the US arms sale to Taiwan will not go
through.
Entrusting
peace to a dictatorship
By Huang Chi-yao 黃啟堯
Friday, Apr 24, 2009, Page 8
The US Court of Appeals in Washington recently ruled in favor of the US
government in the case of Roger C.S. Lin et al v United States of America. The
decision, which was written by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, stated that: “America
and China’s tumultuous relationship over the past sixty years has trapped the
inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory. During this time the people on
Taiwan have lived without any uniformly recognized government. In practical
terms, this means they have uncertain status in the world community, which
infects the population’s day-to-day lives. This pervasive ambiguity has driven
Appellants to try to concretely define their national identity and personal
rights.”
Indeed, the people of Taiwan have lived in political purgatory for 60 years
because the US did not establish domestic legislation or automatically execute
the San Francisco Peace Treaty after signing it, nor did it act in accordance
with the guiding principles of the UN Charter and other international
declarations on human rights and loyally carry out its international duties and
responsibilities as outlined in those treaties — i.e., end the occupation and
assist Taiwan in establishing itself as an independent nation.
Nor did the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) — a domestic US law enacted to handle the
problems created after the US severed diplomatic ties with the Republic of China
(ROC) — handle the Taiwan issue that was created as a result of the San
Francisco Peace Treaty. This has caused the Taiwanese public to suffer the
dilemma of occupation by a Chinese government in exile and lack of diplomatic
recognition.
While there is no doubt that the TRA has made major contributions to the
security, peace and prosperity of Taiwan and the Western Pacific region and kept
Taiwan free of military encroachment and annexation by China, the “one China”
policy framework has caused Taiwan to lose almost any formal diplomatic
recognition — be it of de facto or de jure independence. This has had a negative
impact on Taiwan’s sovereignty and human rights.
From this perspective, the “one China” policy has limited Taiwan’s international
relations and participation in international organizations. This has damaged
Taiwan’s sovereignty, which in turn has damaged regional security. Diplomacy is
a soft form of military force and the cross-strait military imbalance is the
result of diplomatic imbalance, which in turn has had a negative impact on
stability and prosperity in the Western Pacific area. This reasoning is borne
out by Section 4(d) of the TRA which states: “Nothing in this Act may be
construed as a basis for supporting the exclusion or expulsion of Taiwan from
continued membership in any international financial institution or any other
international organization.”
The “one China” policy has also had a negative impact on human rights. Section
2(c) of the TRA states: “Nothing contained in this Act shall contravene the
interest of the United States in human rights, especially with respect to the
human rights of all the approximately eighteen million inhabitants of Taiwan.
The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan
are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States.” Part (b) of the same
section also states that it is the policy of the US “to make clear that the
United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s
Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be
determined by peaceful means.”
Self-determination is the basis of human rights, while peace is merely the form
which human rights take. The majority of people in Taiwan, especially the
Taiwanese people as defined by the San Francisco Peace Treaty, do not believe
that they are Chinese and therefore naturally do not agree that Taiwan is a part
of China or that they should decide Taiwan’s future together with the people of
China.
Although the Treaty of Taipei signed in 1952 by the ROC and Japan did not deal
with the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan — it did not have the power to do so
— in terms of terminology, the treaty states that “nationals of the Republic of
China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of
Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores),” and this has been detrimental to
human rights in Taiwan. The government used bloody suppression, martial law and
assassinations to achieve its goal of controlling Taiwan. The methods were very
similar to the military threats of China and were in clear breach of Article 2.4
of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of military force. The US should have
submitted these crimes to the UN to be solved via resolution.
In addition, the TRA governs the relations between the peoples of the US and
Taiwan, and it regulates foreign, rather than diplomatic, relations. However, it
is not concerned with the long-standing issue of “the governing authorities on
Taiwan” and does not include anything on urging these “authorities” to improve
human rights in Taiwan.
Since President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government took office, it has used the
excuse of conducting peaceful dialogue with China to lean heavily toward China
in the name of diplomacy in order to expedite its goal of eventual unification.
This policy change and government comments last year that it would be prepared
to go to war with Japan over an incident involving a sunken fishing boat in the
disputed Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands have severely damaged the US’ strategic
interests in the Western Pacific region as well as Taiwan’s security.
Economically, the government is relying more and more on China and appears bent
on uprooting all of Taiwan’s industries. The economic cooperation framework
agreement that the government is preparing to sign with China is in conflict
with the WTO framework and political and economic priorities, ignoring domestic
unemployment and industrial survival. Even worse, in its pursuit of dictatorship
and reestablishment of an authoritarian system of government, the Ma
administration has damaged democracy, infringed on human rights and directed
prosecutors, police and the judiciary to abuse their powers, harming the rule of
law, fairness, justice, freedom and equality in Taiwan.
These examples are clear evidence that the government is moving toward
substantive integration with China and selling off Taiwan’s democracy and human
rights in the process. However, the US does not show appropriate concern or
intervene, which clearly violates the spirit of the TRA.
While the TRA has contributed greatly to security across the Taiwan Strait over
the last 30 years, security, sovereignty and human rights are complementary and
cannot be separated from each other. Because the source of these threats is the
same, the danger is unitary but multifaceted. Only by promoting Taiwan’s
sovereignty and human rights can we establish a sound foundation for security.
The only way to consolidate security in the Western Pacific and East Asia is by
guaranteeing freedom and democracy in Taiwan. Entrusting peace to a dictatorship
is not the way to do that.
Huang Chi-yao is an international
lawyer and former visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute.
PRC media
suppression reaches out to Taiwan
By Leon Chuang 莊豐嘉
Friday, Apr 24, 2009, Page 8
‘China can easily feast on the financially troubled Taiwanese media like a wolf
among a flock of sheep while the Taiwanese government stands idly by.’
What if one day Taiwanese journalists were to get paid in yuan and cover
Taiwanese news exclusively for Chinese media outlets while employing Chinese
“product placement” in their news reports? What would happen to the voice of
Taiwanese if public opinion were to be silenced by the Chinese government?
This is not a hypothetical question, because it is happening right now.
Want Want China Holdings Ltd chairman Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明) and his family
acquired the China Times Group media syndicate in November. Tsai, who answers to
officials from various provinces and cities in China, could report that he had
“followed the directives from his superiors to report on the prosperity of the
motherland.” The acquisition did not cause much of a stir at China Times or the
media industry because employees received their paychecks and bonuses on time.
They probably thought: “What’s so bad about that?”
China has spent tens of billions of dollars to get a foothold in the global
media. The investment in Taiwan is just a drop in the bucket. Flushed with cash,
China can easily feast on the financially troubled Taiwanese media like a wolf
among a flock of sheep while the Taiwanese government stands idly by.
The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is leaning toward Chinese
news agencies like Xinhua opening branches in Taiwan. Xinhua is a state news
agency that aggressively pushed Beijing’s “united front” tactics in Hong Kong
before its handover to China. If Xinhua were to open a branch in Taiwan, what
are the chances that it will not do the same thing here? “Entering the island,
entering the households and entering the hearts of the public” are the major
goals of China’s psychological and media warfare in Taiwan.
Taiwan is a capitalist society, so commercial media outlets are mainly driven by
profit. It is therefore very easy to make these outlets change their stance. The
Taiwan Advertisers’ Association used to seek order in the media chaos, but now
it has become used to controlling the media in Taiwan to avoid angering their
Chinese bosses.
What is the biggest threat to Taiwan’s media outlets? It is that they will not
be able to report anything that goes against Chinese interests. Many Taiwanese
media outlet owners have colluded with China. What’s worse is that politicians
and businesspeople are joining hands in an attempt to take over the Taiwanese
media industry. There will soon be no space left for freedom, yet Taiwanese
continue to think they have a thorough grasp of the situation.
Taiwanese media outlets seem to be struggling to seize the last chance to
express their opinion as Beijing’s shadow looms ever closer and their freedom of
expression is vanishing quickly. Will freedom become but a memory for future
generations?
Leon Chuang is chairman of the
Association of Taiwan Journalists.