Washington, 29 September 1998
       On 29 September 1998, the Washington Times
    published an excellent article regarding Taiwan and U.S.
    policy towards the island nation by Mr. Edward Wei,
    policy analyst at the Washington-based Center for Taiwan
    International Relations.
                
          Washington, Tuesday, September 29, 1998
                                
    If a day arises when an unwilling Taiwan is snatched into the
grasp of the People's Republic of China, it would be wholly
accurate to say that Taiwan was "shanghaied."
                
    Ameriican Presidential visits to Shanghai have never boded
well for Taiwanese aspirations of self-determination. In his
recent visit to China, President Clinton chose the venue of a
small roundtable of academics in the Chinese metropolis to state
publicly for the first time the "Three No's," which enunciate
American unwillingness to support (1) Taiwan independence,
(2)"one China, one Taiwan" and "two Chinas", and (3) Taiwanese
entrance into international organizations.
                
   Despite the gravity of this policy for the Taiwanese and the
ire it has drawn among them, the significance of Clinton's
utterance can not match Nixon's 1972 Shanghai Communique in
scope and effect. This groundbreaking document is singly
responsible for having inextricably changed US-Taiwan-China
relations and for unwittingly drawing the battle lines for how
the political war over Taiwan has been waged ever since.
                
   Within the Communique is an often overlooked and seemingly
innocuous statement. The US declared that "it reaffirms its
interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the
Chinese themselves." Subtle, but far-reaching, the opinion that
the "Chinese themselves" should resolve the conflict suggests
two critical misconceptions of this highly charged debate.
                
   First, the statement insinuates that Taiwan is wholly
composed of people of Chinese identity. Although in 1972,
those heading Taiwan's authoritarian government considered
themselves Chinese and the legitimate Chinese government, the
statement implicitly disempowers and ignores all those living
in Taiwan who don't consider themselves Chinese. In fact,
polls currently show that only 16 percent identify themselves
as strictly Chinese. Moreover, in the late 1940's, when the
Kuomintang began rule in Taiwan, roughly only one-quarter of
the 8 million people were "Chinese," i.e. those who themselves
came from mainland China. The rest were natives. That the China-
Taiwan conflict involves more than the Chinese but also the
Taiwanese people is imperative to remember in the forum for
debate of American policy even if it still adheres to the
"One China"; policy.

   Second, the Communique language of "Chinese themselves" implies
the conflict is (to use the language of the Chinese) an "internal
affair". Peering through these faulty lenses, the visions of
American policy makers have been blurred from realizing that
primarily a universal, not an internal issue is at stake in the
Taiwan-China discord. That elusive issue is human rights.
Taiwan's subjected counterparts, Tibet and Tiananmen, receive
much attention; but Taiwan is usually excluded from such
discussions.
                
   Often forgotten is the Taiwanese people's entitlement to
choose their own nation free from fear of force. This concept
is succinctly stated in Article 15 [excerpt] of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his nationality." If the Taiwanese people do not
have a say in the possible unification with China, the
Taiwanese would be suffering a deprivation of their nationality
and a violation of their human right. Though seemingly obvious,
the belief that the 21 million Taiwanese people should ultimately
decide their own fate is not entrenched in the current framework
for debate.
                
   Instead, the two aforementioned misconceptions continue to
be pervasive. A prime example lies in President Clinton's
reply to a question at Beijing University where he said, "United
States policy is not an obstacle to the peaceful reunification
of China and Taiwan ... we have encouraged the cross-strait
dialogue to achieve that." The prefix "re" in reunification
suggests that Taiwan and its people were in some way unified
with China before. Although this concept may apply for the two
million Kuomintang supporters who came over from China by 1949,
it is false for the six million who were already living on the
island at that time and the 84 percent of the people today who do
not consider themselves "Chinese." President Clinton speaks as if
no Taiwanese people live in Taiwan.
                
   Furthermore, President Clinton's naming of "cross-strait
dialogue" as the means to "reunification" undermines the human
rights of the Taiwanese to choose their nationality and their
leaders. Ultimately, neither Jiang Zemin, Lee Teng-Hui, nor
their respective circles should solely decide for or against
unification; the Taiwanese people themselves should wield that
power. In the current forum surrounding the China-Taiwan
conflict, little is ever said about empowering the Taiwanese
people to make the choice of nationality.
                
   President Clinton has not been the only American official
maintaining these misconceptions. Supporters of the Taiwanese
cause and well-meaning Congressmen and Senators have been
equally as susceptible to the belif that the China-Taiwan
conflict is purely a Chinese disagreement and an internal, not
universal issue. Only last year, a bill introduced in the Senate
read: "Taiwan reached a historic turning point in the development
of Chinese democracy ... when it conducted the first ... popular
election ... in over 4,000 years of recorded Chinese history."
Linking the Taiwanese election to Chinese history assumes that
the people in Taiwan are Chinese, a premise that is at least 84
percent wrong.
                
   A survey of every bill introduced in the 105th Congress thus
far shows that not one mentions the Taiwanese people's entitlement
to decide their own nationality as an universal or human right.
Legislation has invariably focused on trade, security, and
international recognition. These are issues of utmost importance,
but they miss the underlining point: the Taiwanese people and
their human right to choose their nationality. Even legislation
that explicitly supports Taiwanese sovereignty often fails to
emphasize the Taiwanese people's, not its government's, power to
decide its own fate.

   To this end, the US should back its ubiquitous democracy and
human rights rhetoric and support a resolution by national
referendum. The Taiwanese people themselves, not strictly the
Kuomintang nor the Democratic Progressive Party leaders, ought
to choose their own leaders and country. The Chinese should be
told that the referendum is the only way the US will support
unification and that China must renounce the use of force.

   To prevent the referendum from being an absurd choice between
authoritarianism and democracy, the referendum may not occur
until the Chinese demonstrate significant steps in democratization.
By this method the US simultaneously encourages democracy in
China and sustains human rights in Taiwan. It allows a scenario
for China to unify with Taiwan while also permitting the latter
to completely disassociate itself with the former should it wish.
Additionally, the US finally removes itself from the zero-sum
nature of American relations toward China and Taiwan and grounds
American policy in concrete, worthwhile principles: democracy and
human rights. In the meantime, the US should support Taiwanese
bids to join international organizations.
                
   Critics will charge that a strong American support for a
Taiwanese referendum may lead to a potentially catastrophic
end game. However, they fail to see that the status quo offers
a greater chance for this scenario. Low-level talks are scheduled
to resume between Taiwan and China with no likely or viable
scenario for Taiwan to unify with China in sight. At current pace,
China's drive toward unification will only reach frustration.
At least, the referendum offers a peaceful script according to
which Taiwan may unify with China--but of more importance the
power of decision is rightfully placed within the hands of the
Taiwanese. Furthermore, while American policy can stand firm in
support of human rights for the people of Tibet and Tiananmen,
it never does so for their sister .

   Human rights should be extended to all. Don't forget the
Taiwanese people.