What is this "One China" controversy?
Shane Lee
For a long time, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has been putting pressure on the rest of the world to accept its assertion that "there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." Most, if not all, countries have no problem with "there is but one China." That includes the United States and even Taiwan.
For Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC, or KMT government) has long insisted on the premise too and was benefited by that up to 1971 because it enjoyed diplomatic relations with most countries and was regarded as the sole legitimate representative of China in the United Nations.
But in 1971, when the United Nations debated the legitimate representation of China, it foolishly rejected a 19-country (including the US) proposal to seat both the PRC and the ROC in the UN. It is commonly agreed that the proposal had a very good chance of being passed. Had the ROC not rejected the proposal, the history of Taiwan and the cross-Taiwan Strait relations would have been very different. Lee Teng-hui's "special state to state theory" (also known as the "two states theory") is nothing but an escape route from the long and frustrating period since 1971.
The pro-Taiwan independence forces have never quarreled with the "one China" premise, but they have stridently disagreed with the assertion that "Taiwan is part of China."
The PRC has not presented any convincing historical facts or international law arguments for this assertion, or any reasonable enticements to the people of Taiwan to accept that Taiwan should become part of China. Instead, it has made a lot of rhetorical and military threats to Taiwan. Obviously, this has been the central cause of the tension in the Taiwan Strait.
It is quite understandable that the PRC should react badly to the "two states theory", but it is quite hypocritical for the US or any other country to find the theory objectionable. Ever since the end of World War Two, the US has had a "two states theory" in coping with the relations between the Taiwan Strait. From President Truman's declaration of a neutral Taiwan, through US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty under the Eisenhower Administration, to the Taiwan Relations Act enacted during the Carter Administration, the US actually recognizes the fact that Taiwan exists independently of China. If this is not recognizing "two states," I don't know what it is. If the "one China" policy of the US is not a lie, it is a trick of international politics, which makes Taiwan suffer.
I find Lee Teng-hui's "two states theory" courageous and laudable. Mr. Su Chi, the incumbent Mainland Affairs Council chief, did a fairly good job in explaining the theory and placating the US. But in his recent face-to-face encounter with his successor, Ms. Tsai Ying-wen, he criticized Chen Shui-bian's position-which is that "one China" cannot be accepted as a pre-condition to, but can serve as an issue of, the future talks between the PRC and the ROC-- as putting the question in a "neutral gear," thus solving nothing. I think, for party politics, he could have made a stronger point if he had said that the Chen Government was chickening out. But we know, of course, Mr. Su just couldn't do that.
The incoming Chen Government has been extremely cautious and low key
in making statements about the China issue. Ms. Tsai's explanation is
that Taiwan cannot afford any risk at this time. This is perhaps a good
strategy before it takes office, but somehow it has to gradually advance
to the "two states theory" and even further, if Taiwan is to survive.
If not, it will eventually mean surrender to the PRC, which is neither
in the interest of the people of Taiwan, nor in the strategic interest
of the US.
如有任何意見，
請 email 到 wufidata@wufi.org.tw
信件將登載於【大眾廣場】。
如內容適合刊登於【共和國】， 我們也將在【言論廣場】轉載。
如果信件不願被轉載，請註明。感謝您的光臨與支持。