Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger published an essay entitled 
"The Way to Avoid Confrontation" regarding U.S. policy toward China and 
Taiwan in the October 25 edition of Yomiuri Shinbun.  In a word, the idea is 
to avoid a crisis of Sino-U.S. confrontation and defer China's unification 
with Taiwan by getting Taiwan to agree that Taiwan is part of China.
    The theme of the article is similar to the so-called "Nye Proposal," 
i.e., "A Taiwan Deal" essay published by former Assistant Secretary of 
Defense Joseph Nye in the Washington Post of March 8, 1998.  The Nye proposal 
consists of having Taiwan forswear any formal declaration of independence and 
asking China to apply to Taiwan the "One Country, Two Systems" idea similar 
to that adopted for Hong Kong. 
    Both the Nye proposal and the current Kissinger proposal actually demand 
nothing of China.  What these two men ask of China is already China's present 
policy toward Taiwan.  What is common to both proposals is the idea that in 
order to prevent a Sino-U.S. confrontation, sacrificing Taiwan is 
unavoidable.  This is not only an unjust idea which completely ignores the 
human rights of the Taiwanese people, it enhances the likelihood of a war in 
the Taiwan strait in the future by postponing the resolution of the Taiwan 
problem.
    I have reprinted the whole Nye essay in the May 1998 issue of Taiwan 
Youth and at the same time I have published an article entitled "Will the 
U.S. Court the Third Disaster in Its Taiwan Policy? The U.S. Must Not Accept 
the Nye Proposal."  (The English version of this essay was distributed to all 
members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.)  This time, too, I 
would like to state my views as well as reprint the entire Kissinger proposal 
in this issue (Taiwan Youth, November 1999).


    The Kissinger Plan is the Path to War

    In the Kissinger article, there is not one word about the people of 
Taiwan.  He willfully disregards the wishes of the Taiwanese people and their 
future.
    NATO has intervened in the recent Kosovo war and the UN has intervened in 
the East Timor dispute to put an end to large-scale violation of human 
rights.  It appears Kosovo is now moving toward independence from Yugoslavia 
and Indonesia has accepted the independence of East Timor.
    Taiwan, however, is not ruled by any foreign nation and therefore does 
not need to become independent from any other country.  No one can deny the 
fact that an independent country exists on Taiwan.  Furthermore, this is a 
far larger country than Kosovo or East Timor.  Among the world's 190 nations, 
Taiwan is by no means a small country, even though it cannot be called large.
    Taiwan's population is about 22 million, or 43rd in the world.  According 
to World Bank statistics, in 1998, Taiwan's Gross National Product (GNP) was 
US $260.9 billion which ranked 19th; per capita GNP was US $11,982 which 
ranked 23rd.  When compared with China, while Taiwan's population is only 
one-sixtieth of China's 1.3 billion, Taiwan's GNP is equal to 30 percent of 
China's GNP and Taiwan's per capita GNP is 16 times that of China.
    Furthermore, the people of Taiwan have achieved fundamental 
democratization by combating more than 40 years of a rule of terror by Chiang 
Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-Kuo, by directly electing for the first 
time in 1991 and 1992 congressional legislators (representatives to the 
National Assembly and members of the Legislative Yuan) and by electing a 
president cum head of state through a first-time direct, democratic popular 
election in 1996.
    If Taiwan were to accept the assertion by China and Dr. Kissinger that 
Taiwan is part of China, the absorption of Taiwan by China will become 
justifiable and China may one day launch a military invasion of Taiwan.  In 
that event, will the people of Taiwan give up their freedom and prosperity, 
won through a half century's hard struggle, and readily succumb to China?  An 
opinion survey shows that if China were to attack, 78.35 percent of the 
Taiwanese would fight and only 12.14 percent of the respondents would not 
fight.
    If Taiwan were to be annexed by China, the nations of Southeast Asia and 
Korea will inevitably fall under China's hegemony because the credibility of 
the Japan-U.S. Mutual Security Treaty and the U.S.-Korea Mutual Security 
Treaty will be destroyed.  When that happens, Japan will be reduced to the 
orphan of East Asia, and America will lose its influence in East Asia.  From 
the perspective of Japan-U.S. alliance and U.S.-Korea alliance, a war in the 
Taiwan Strait could well evolve into a large conflict between the free 
nations of Southeast Asia and China.


    Today's China Cannot Attack Taiwan

    Is it really true that a crisis of war in the Taiwan Strait is imminent, 
as Dr. Kissinger maintains?  This is what he says.
    Relations between the United States and China this year have come under 
the greatest strain since bilateral diplomatic ties were reestablished in 
1971....  In this atmosphere Taiwan's sudden and unilateral challenge to the 
existing political understandings in the Taiwan Strait...is interpreted in 
Beijing as the culmination of a U.S. plot to divide China.  Chinese warnings 
of a possible military response have taken on a severity reminiscent of the 
prelude to the Chinese intervention in the Korean War in 1950.

    Were Taiwan to achieve formal U.S. recognition of a separate status, as 
its president now seems to seek, this would surely lead to some kind of 
military clash....

The so-called "unilateral challenge" undoubtedly refers to Lee Teng-hui's 
July 9 statement to the German public broadcasting "Deutsche Welle," which 
follows.
    Since the constitutional amendment of 1991, the status of cross-strait 
relations is one of state to state, at least special state-to-state 
relations.  It certainly is no longer domestic relations within "one China" 
such as relations between a legitimate government and a rebellious group, or 
between the central government and a local government.  

China predictably denounced this Lee Teng-hui statement as a "denial of one 
China and scheming for Taiwan independence" and thereafter sent messages as 
though a military assault on Taiwan was imminent through mass communication 
media in China and Hong Kong.  On July 15, the Chinese government announced 
it has perfected the technology to design a neutron bomb and  miniaturize 
nuclear warheads.  Then China's state owned military journals even intimated 
an attack on Taiwan with nuclear weapons by stating "the best way to destroy 
enemy aircrafts on the ground and ships in a naval base may be to use 
strategic nuclear weapons," and "to attack Taiwan, the use of a neutron bomb 
will be most effective since it only kills soldiers on a massive scale 
without damaging buildings."
    There would have been panic in Taiwan if the people of Taiwan had 
believed such messages from China.  But the Taiwanese remained calm and 
Taiwan was tranquil.  The Taiwanese, who know the Chinese best, saw through 
the intimidation and psychological warfare.  Based on dispassionate judgment, 
even non-Taiwanese can understand this.
    The Chinese military suggested the use of nuclear weapons probably 
because it is widely known that without resorting to nuclear weapons today's 
China does not have the military capability to vanquish Taiwan.  But if 
nuclear weapons were used, it is obvious China will become the enemy of 
mankind and China itself will be ruined.  What will happen, then, in the case 
of an attack on Taiwan with conventional weapons?  Taiwan will undoubtedly 
suffer severe damage, but China may sustain even greater losses.  This is 
because China won't be able to escape thorough-going economic sanctions by 
democratic nations, even if there is no military intervention by the United 
States.  Thus, it is not difficult to foresee that China's economy, which is 
barely sustained by foreign capital and technology, will collapse, causing 
great panic and making it difficult for the communist regime to hold on to 
power.
    The People's Republic of China (PRC) has fought many foreign wars.  
Studies have shown that these wars were all calculated moves.  The Chinese 
are very astute.


    Why Can't Taiwan Say "We Respect China's Territory and Sovereignty"?

    Dr. Kissinger says "Taiwan has suddenly and unilaterally challenged 
existing political understandings in Sino-Taiwan relations."  By this he 
means the abandonment of the "one China" theory by Taiwan.  What then is this 
"one China" theory which was disavowed by Taiwan?
    President Lee Teng-hui has said "In 1991, our country amended the 
constitution to limit the geographical realm of our jurisdiction to Taiwan 
and to recognize the legitimacy of the PRC's rule on the mainland."  After 
the Chiang regime was defeated in the civil war against the Chinese Communist 
Party (CCP) and escaped to Taiwan, it insisted on its status as the 
legitimate government of China and vowed to take back the Chinese mainland.  
Chiang Kai-shek advocated "counterattack the mainland."  Chiang Ching-Kuo 
gave up forceful recovery of the mainland but did not alter the goal of 
taking back the mainland through peaceful means.  This was a basic national 
goal arbitrarily decided by dictators.  But Taiwan is a democratic country 
today.
    While those mainlanders who went to Taiwan with the Chiang regime may 
care about Chinese territory, the Taiwanese who comprise 87 percent of 
Taiwan's population are not concerned about China's territory.  It makes 
sense that the General Assembly has amended the constitution, representing 
the will of a great majority of the citizens, to limit the constitutional 
domain to Taiwan.  Isn't it also most logical for the president, as head of 
state who represents the nation and the citizens, to declare on behalf of a 
great majority of the people, that Taiwan has no ambition towards China's 
territory?
    What president Lee has said is that Taiwan has now given up the Chiang 
regime's policy of recovering China, and will henceforth respect China's 
sovereignty and territory.  Why is this wrong?  China has no reason to oppose 
this; it should instead thank Taiwan.  It is strange for China to be angered 
by an expression of respect for its sovereignty and territory. As a friend of 
China, Dr. Kissinger should be so advising China; to vilify Taiwan is wide of 
the mark.
    Dr. Kissinger also says the Taiwan president now seems to seek formal 
U.S. recognition of a separate status.  Because the Chiang regime proclaimed 
itself to be the legitimate government of China, Taiwan was evicted from the 
United Nations, lost diplomatic relations with all major countries, and 
became isolated from the international community.  The Chiang regime also 
kept insisting that "the Republic of China is an independent sovereign 
state."  Still, the international community couldn't have accepted the demand 
to recognize Taiwan as "China's legitimate government."  However, Taiwan has 
now discarded such a fiction.  Having clarified its lack of aspirations after 
Chinese territory, it is logical for Taiwan to demand that the international 
community recognize its status as an independent, sovereign state.  The 
current situation, where Taiwan is unjustly ostracized by the world, is no 
longer tolerable to the twenty-two million people of Taiwan.
    This is not the first time President Lee has said "Taiwan is an 
independent, sovereign state separate from China."  The November 8, 1997 
edition of the Washington Post reported President Lee as saying "Taiwan is a 
symbol of American idealism.  Taiwan symbolizes freedom, democracy, and human 
rights.... Taiwan is Taiwan.... We are an independent, sovereign country."
    On November 10 of the same year, The Times related President Lee's words 
"Taiwan is a country as independent as Great Britain or France."  There may 
have been some domestic reason for China's violent reaction to President 
Lee's statement this time, while it didn't make any noise before.


    Dr. Kissinger's Position is Full of Inconsistencies

    Dr. Kissinger states thus:
    Starting with World War II, U.S. presidents have affirmed Taiwan to be a 
part of China in one form or another; Franklin Roosevelt in 1943, Harry 
Truman in 1945, Richard Nixon in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1979 and Ronald Reagan 
in 1982.  The Reagan communique moreover stated that the United States had no 
intention of "pursuing a policy of two Chinas, or one China, one Taiwan" - a 
formula repeated 16 years later by Clinton in Shanghai.
    In November 1943 in the midst of World War II, the three top leaders of 
the allied nations, American President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister 
Churchill and Republic of China President Chiang Kai-shek held a conference 
in Cairo.  At this meeting, Roosevelt suddenly offered to give Taiwan to the 
Republic of China.  As Chiang Kai-shek's aides have reported, Chiang did not 
demand Taiwan, and didn't even imagine that Taiwan would fall into his hands. 
 Roosevelt was worried Chiang Kai-shek might arrange an armistice with Japan 
on his own and depart from the ranks of the allied forces, and simply wanted 
to tempt Chiang with this bait.  Since Taiwan was not Roosevelt's possession, 
he couldn't have arbitrarily disposed of Taiwan.  As both U.S. and British 
governments have admitted later, the Cairo declaration by the three leaders 
did not have any legal foundation.
    However, this careless statement was to cause severe hardship for the 
people of Taiwan.  Upon the surrender of Japan, supreme commander of the 
allied nations General MacArthur's general order number one to have Chiang 
Kai-shek occupy Taiwan may have been based on the Cairo declaration.  The 
occupation of Japan by U.S. armed forces and the occupation of Manchuria 
(presently northeast China) by the Soviet forces were also based on this 
general order number one, which merely directed temporary occupation by the 
victorious nations. 
    Chiang Kai-shek treated Taiwan as a spoil of war, looted the Taiwanese 
people and when the Taiwanese resisted, suppressed them with military power.  
In the February 28 incident of 1947, more than 30,000 Taiwanese were 
slaughtered.  After Chiang Kai-shek was chased out of China, he imposed 
martial law and subjugated the Taiwanese people with a rule of terror.  This 
martial law actually lasted until 1987, near the end of Chiang Ching-kuo's 
reign.
    The peace treaty between 48 allied nations and Japan was concluded at San 
Francisco in 1951.  But due to the difference of opinions among the allied 
nations, the San Francisco Peace Treaty merely decided on Japan's 
relinquishment of Taiwan and did not at all touch on Taiwan's ultimate 
status.  Consequently, Taiwan's legal status is undecided under international 
law.
    Who then has the right to determine the ultimate status of Taiwan?  A 
people's right to self-determination is well established in international law 
under the UN Charter, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to 
Colonial Countries and Peoples which was adopted by the UN in 1960, and the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which was adopted in 
1966.  It is not permissible to treat people as appendages to land as in the 
days of slavery and serfdom.  Only the Taiwanese people, who have already 
developed the island over the past several hundred years, are Taiwan's 
sovereign.  It is obvious only the Taiwanese have the right to determine 
Taiwan's ultimate status.  It was Dr. Kissinger who negotiated the Sino-U.S. 
joint communique which was issued when President Nixon visited China in 1972. 
 It is utterly uncanny for him to say all U.S. presidents since World War II, 
including President Nixon, "have affirmed Taiwan to be a part of China."  The 
Sino-U.S. joint communique states as follows:
    The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the 
Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of 
China.

It is correct that Chinese on both sides said "Taiwan is a part of China."  
This was not true of the Taiwanese.  Taiwanese abroad have opposed such a 
statement since that time.  But the Taiwanese who lived on Taiwan were not 
able to openly object to the basic policy of the Chiang regime under the rule 
of terror.  In any event, the "China" referred to by the CCP regime meant the 
People's Republic of China, and what the Chiang regime called "China" meant 
the Republic of China which existed on Taiwan.  The joint communique simply 
acknowledged this fact.
    Upon his return to the U.S. after signing the joint communique, President 
Nixon stated:  "We did not say which China was the so-called one China."  The 
U.S. established diplomatic relations with the PRC during the Carter 
administration in 1979. The Nixon administration probably made such a poor 
excuse since it continued to maintain formal relations with Taiwan.  However, 
what Dr. Kissinger calls "China" has to mean the PRC.  If the U.S. had 
acknowledged Taiwan as part of the PRC in the 1972 Sino-U.S. joint 
communique, then how can one explain the maintenance of formal diplomatic 
relations with the Republic of China (ROC) by the Nixon administration?
    The Sino-U.S. joint communique which established diplomatic relations 
between the U.S. and China on January 1, 1979 states:  "The Government of the 
United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but 
one China and Taiwan is part of China."  Since the Carter administration 
implemented diplomatic relations with the PRC and severed formal relations 
with the ROC, in this instance "China" must point to the PRC.  But the U.S. 
merely acknowledged China's position.  The U.S. did not recognize Taiwan as 
part of China.
    The 1982 Sino-U.S. joint communique, which was announced during the 
Reagan administration, stated, as mentioned also by Dr. Kissinger, that the 
United States had no intention of "pursuing a policy of two Chinas, or one 
China, one Taiwan."  Of course, it is the Taiwanese people who are pursuing 
self-determination for Taiwan, not the United States.  The issue is not the 
pursuit of Taiwan's self-determination by the U.S. or by other countries, it 
is rather the Taiwanese people's right to self-determination and the 
acceptability of its consequences.
    Dr. Kissinger further states: "...the United States, like the vast 
majority of the world's governments, was recognizing Beijing as the 
legitimate government of all of China.  But, unlike most other countries, we 
were supplying the vast majority of the weapons for what was being treated 
officially as part of another country."
    "Another country" here refers to the PRC and "what was being treated..." 
apparently means Taiwan.  There is no connection whatsoever between the 
recognition of the PRC as the legitimate government of China and the issue of 
Taiwan's ultimate status.  Among countries which recognize the PRC, only a 
limited number have recognized Taiwan as part of the PRC, including former 
communist nations. The democratic countries, including the U.S., have 
recognized no such thing.  When was Taiwan officially recognized as part of 
the PRC?  Such a fact does not exist.
    It is not possible to resolve a real problem through a distortion of 
facts or logic based on fiction.  For a reasonable solution of the Taiwan 
issue, what is needed most is to face reality and to listen to the voice of 
the people on Taiwan.
    Reflecting the will of the vast majority of the Taiwanese people, 
President Lee Teng-hui has discarded the Chiang regime's fictitious framework 
and forthrightly depicted the current reality that "relations between Taiwan 
and China are state to state relations."

Published in Japanese in the November 1999 issue of Taiwan Youth and in the 
February 2000 issue of Ji-yu (Freedom).