|
Tsai has correct
sovereignty view
By Chen Yi-shen 陳儀深
During the Martial Law era from 1949 to 1987, Taiwanese independence activists
in exile separated Taiwan from the Republic of China (ROC) and advocated using
every means possible to overthrow the ROC government, which seemed entirely fair
and just at the time.
However, after the end of martial law and the democratization of the 1990s, the
World United Formosans for Independence and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
both transformed, adopting the view that Taiwan is already an independent
nation.
It is now 40 years since the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) were
expelled from the UN and the UN General Assembly’s resolution 2758 recognized
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the only legitimate representative of
China on Oct. 25, 1971. How the UN handled the issue of which government should
represent China in 1971 and how the ROC dealt with the crisis provides a chance
to ponder the dialectical relationship between Taiwan and the ROC. It will also
aid the understanding of the “status quo” and what sort of decisions can be made
in future to get us out of this situation.
While the US was dealing with changes in the international arena and adjusting
its policies toward China, it was forced to face reality — the PRC was the new
China. However, at the same time it also sought to maintain the ROC’s seat in
the UN by proposing dual representation. As late as March 9, 1971, Winthrop
Brown, then-deputy assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the
US Department of State, came to Taipei to talk with then-deputy foreign minister
Yang Hsi-kun (楊西崑) about how the US believed dual representation would be the
best way to ensure the ROC’s seat in the next session of the UN General
Assembly.
Then, on April 23 that year, then-US president Richard Nixon sent diplomat
Robert Murphy to Taiwan as his personal representative to meet with Chiang at
the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall in Taipei. Murphy also suggested the dual
representation model as a replacement for the proposed vote to make the issue a
so-called “Important Question,” a device requiring a two-thirds majority in the
UN General Assembly before any change could be made to the issue at hand. Chiang
told Murphy that as long as the ROC could keep its place on the UN Security
Council, he would accept any strategy the US proposed.
However, in the process of garnering support for the proposal from its allies,
the US soon realized that a simple dual representation solution that did not
mention the Security Council seat was impossible. Thus, then-US secretary of
state William Rogers formally announced on Aug. 2 that Beijing would be given
China’s seat on the Security Council, which was the more complex model of dual
representation.
On Sept. 3, Rogers formally notified then-ROC ambassador to the US Chow Shu-kai
(周書楷) that in order to obtain the least amount of resistance from other UN
member nations, the US had already decided to implement a vote for the complex
dual representation model and asked for the ROC’s understanding and continued
cooperation. This was followed by the ROC resolutely opposing any suggestion
that its seat on the Security Council be given to the PRC.
It is clear that while Chiang’s government was able to swallow that bitter pill
— two Chinas simultaneously existing in the UN — it was unable to accept the PRC
getting China’s permanent seat on the Security Council. Thus, Chiang eventually
decided to leave the UN, saying that “gentlemen cannot stand together with
thieves.”
Following the US’ calculations, a US State Department spokesperson said in April
that the status of Taiwan remained unsettled, which according to the US’
then-national security advisor Henry Kissinger was meant to serve as a legal
basis for dual representation. If that was successful, Taiwan and the Pescadores
could have been successfully combined to constitute the ROC, but in the end,
this attempt failed and the status of Taiwan and the Pescadores continued to be
undetermined. However, if the ROC would have admitted that it only represented
Taiwan and the Pescadores when the UN announced that it no longer represented
China, it would have continued to gain international goodwill.
From this perspective, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) view that there is “one
China with each side having its own interpretation” and the blurred delineation
of sovereignty geared toward mutual non-recognition of each other’s sovereignty
is even less responsible and unrealistic than Chiang’s approach in 1971.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) remark at one of her presidential campaign
rallies that Taiwan is already an independent nation and that the ROC is indeed
now the nation of Taiwan — or vice versa — at least gives a clear definition to
the issue of the nation’s sovereignty and is not simply some scheme to get
elected next year. Tsai’s statement rings true to historical fact — not fiction.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of
Modern History.
Translated by Kyle Jeffcoat
|
