|
Taiwan’s status still undetermined
By Chen Yi-shen 陳儀深
Saturday, Feb 27, 2010, Page 8
On Aug. 31, 1993, the Chinese government published a white paper titled The
Taiwan Question and Unification of China (台灣問題與中國統一), which was made available
in seven languages at the same time. The white paper repeated China’s old tricks
of altering Taiwan’s history and making twisted interpretations of international
law, claiming that “Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times.”
The Taiwan Association of University Professors (台灣教授協會) responded by assembling
a group of historians and experts in politics and law, who together wrote a book
titled Peaceful Coexistence: Two Countries, Two Systems — The fundamental view
of the Taiwan people regarding the relationship between Taiwan and China
(兩國兩制,和平共存,台灣人民對台灣與中國關係的基本主張), which was published in Chinese and English
versions in 1994.
The historical part of the book refutes the claims of China’s white paper by
quoting the following passage from the Qing Dynasty Chronicle of the Yung-cheng
Emperor (雍正實錄): “Taiwan, historically not part of China, was conquered and
became Qing territory under the great power of the Kangxi (康熙) Emperor.”
Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that, although Taiwan was “historically
not part of China,” it was incorporated into China’s territory during the reign
of the Kangxi Emperor, and was ruled by the Qing until it was ceded to Japan in
the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895.
Recently, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration said this treaty, in its
Chinese version, ceded the right of administration, but not sovereignty, over
Taiwan. Pro-Taiwan academics have rebutted this argument by pointing out the
different wording of the treaty’s English and Japanese versions. In fact, if
Japan had not later been defeated in the Pacific War and been forced to renounce
its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, Taiwan today would
still be a part of Japan, and there would be no need to argue about different
versions of the treaty. This is an example of political decisions taking
precedence over legal ones.
My second point is that in recent years, quite a lot of pro-Taiwan figures have
said that the Cairo Declaration, signed at the Cairo Conference in 1943, has no
authority, and they draw various conclusions based on that idea.
However, following the end of World War II, Republic of China (ROC) dictator
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), acting on instructions from the Allied Forces, sent
Chinese armed forces to occupy Taiwan and Penghu. Chiang’s officials determined
the nationality of Taiwan’s inhabitants without consulting other Allied
countries.
Not long afterward, Chiang evacuated his central government into exile on
Taiwan. Despite its status as principal occupying power in the Pacific, the US
did nothing to stop this from happening.
In January 1950, former US president Harry Truman decided to abandon Taiwan,
based on the wording of the 1943 Cairo Declaration — on this point, those who
claim that Taiwan is a territory of the US do not have a leg to stand on. Half a
year later, the outbreak of the Korean War induced Truman to return to the
principles of international law, taking the position that Taiwan’s status was
undetermined, and he sent the US Seventh Fleet to reinforce Chiang’s defense of
the Taiwan Strait. Who knows what would have come of Taiwan otherwise?
Since that time, US governments have taken great care to separate the issues of
government recognition and territory. The San Francisco Peace treaty, the
Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (the Treaty of Taipei) and the Mutual Defense Treaty
between the US and the ROC at least held to the position that Taiwan’s status
was undecided, but the US was made well-aware of Beijing’s hard-line stance on
the Taiwan issue.
In 1972, US president Richard Nixon and his special envoy Henry Kissinger held
negotiations with Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來), and the two sides issued the
Shanghai Communique. In 1979 the US broke off diplomatic relations with the ROC.
Since 1979, the US’ relations with Taiwan have been regulated by the Taiwan
Relations Act. The questions of the Soviet Union and Vietnam were among the main
political factors behind these developments. The main concern of the US has been
that China should agree not to use military force against Taiwan, but China
refuses to make such a pledge.
Only on the question of arms sales to Taiwan has the US retained some degree of
freedom to maneuver. As to the Beijing government’s one-sided insistence that
there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of it, why has the US refrained
from objecting? One of the reasons publicly given by the US is that Taiwan’s
government holds to the same position as China.
These days Taiwanese people’s chances to express their point of view are not
restricted, as they were in the days of martial law, to the occasional
appearance at US congressional hearings, street protests and people held in the
Taiyuan (泰源) and Green Island (綠島) prisons. The government of Taiwan must speak
up for its people. We need a president who genuinely identifies with Taiwan, in
command of armed forces that identify with Taiwan, to uphold Taiwan’s
sovereignty and interests in the international arena. If we can’t be clear about
this aim, then all kinds of political movements, from street protest to
parliament, within or outside the system, will amount to nothing but word games.
Chen Yi-shen is chairman of the Taiwan Association of
University Professors.
|
