The "Shared Sovereignty" Theory
Will Put Taiwan Out Of Its Existence
by Song Tiongjong
Translated by Li Thian-hok
Neither The Japan-Us Security Treaty Nor The Taiwan
Relations Act Will Be Able To Protect Taiwan
If Taiwan recognizes the People's Republic of China's claim
of sovereignty over Taiwan, then Taiwan must be excluded as an
object of the Japan-US Security Treaty.
Unless Chang Chengyu's pronouncement is corrected, the coming
discussion of "guidelines for Japan-US defense cooperation" in
the Japanese Diet will inevitably run into difficulties. If new
"guidelines" are not adopted, Taiwan's survival will be
endangered.
Last August, chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council,
Administrative Yuan, Chang Chengyu said: "China is Taiwan with
the Chinese mainland added." He stated further: "The People's
Republic of China (PRC) possesses sovereignty over Taiwan but no
right to govern Taiwan. The Republic of China (ROC) possesses
sovereignty over the Chinese mainland but no right to govern the
Chinese mainland." Since these are statements made by a cabinet
member who is responsible for managing problems with the People's
Republic of China, they may be regarded as official views of the
Kuomintang (KMT) government. Is there full appreciation in Taiwan
of the grave problem implicit in such a pronouncement of "shared
sovereignty?"
If the PRC has sovereignty over Taiwan, the PRC will have a
legitimate right to demand the authority to govern Taiwan. If the
PRC were to use force to obtain the authority to govern Taiwan,
this will be justified as China's domestic affair.
The ROC side also has the right to demand governing authority
over the PRC but this means nothing due to the prevailing power
relationship.
What is important is that, the PRC alone doesn't claim sover-
eignty over Taiwan, the Taiwan side also has expressed acceptance
of such claim. Thus, the Taiwan problem becomes PRC's domestic
problem, just as the PRC has consistently maintained.
The Defense of Taiwan by American Forces
Will Become Impossible
Last year, when the PRC repeated military exercises and fired
missiles in the sea near Taiwan in an attempt to put pressure on
Taiwan's presidential election, the United States promptly sent
two aircraft carriers to restrain the PRC. Japan and the US were
faced with the need to swiftly strengthen their defense coopera-
tion posture in order to deal with the unstable situation.
The month after Taiwan's presidential election, President
Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto conferred in Tokyo and
announced the "Japan-United States Security Declaration An
Alliance Towards the 21st Century." In the Declaration, the two
top leaders emphasized the importance of a solid alliance between
the two countries in preserving peace and security of the Asia-
Pacific region, based on an understanding that "insecurity and
uncertainty continue to exist in this region," and announced that
the "Guideline for Japan-US Defense Cooperation" will be reevalu-
ated in order to strengthen cooperative relationship between the
two countries. The current "guideline" merely stipulates Japan-US
defense cooperation in the event Japan is attacked; so the aim is
to enable Japan and the US to also cooperate and deal with
military conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region. Then, after a year
and five months of dialogue between the two countries, a new
"guideline" was announced last September. However, this new
"guideline" cannot be implemented right away, since certain
legislation and amendment of existing laws need to be carried out
in the Japanese Diet first.
The government of the PRC firmly demands that this
"guideline" clearly exclude Taiwan as a subject of the Japan-US
Security Treaty. The Social Democratic Party (formerly the
Socialist Party), which is allied to the Liberal Democratic Party
regime, also asserts the "exclusion of Taiwan" echoing the PRC.
Once the Diet starts debate on the "guideline," the fact that
"the Taiwan side has also recognized the PRC's sovereignty over
Taiwan" will undoubtedly become a potent weapon for political
factions which demand the "exclusion of Taiwan."
Thus far the government of Japan has not recognized the
assertion that "Taiwan is a part of the territory of the
People's Republic of China." As written in the joint announcement
of 1972 when Japan and China established diplomatic relations,
Japan merely "understands and respects" the claim made by the PRC
government. The United States only "acknowledges" the fact that
the PRC government is making such a claim. Both Japan and the US
have regarded the claim as a unilateral one made by the PRC,
since it is contrary to reality, and it is not accepted by
Taiwan.
Article 6 of the Japan-US Security Treaty provides for the
use of Japanese bases and facilities by American forces "to help
maintain international peace and security in the Far East." The
Japanese government has interpreted the extent of "the Far East"
as "north of the Philippines, including Taiwan and the Korean
peninsula." This is a view which has been consistently held by
the Japanese government since 1960 when the current Security
Treaty was concluded. Japan was able to hold this view based on
the judgment that Taiwan was not under the PRC's sovereignty.
However, this basic premise will collapse once the Taiwan
side accepts the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan. It is then mean-
ingless to bring up the "shared sovereignty" theory. Both Japan
and America recognize the PRC government as China's sole legiti-
mate government. This is logical since that is the reality. Simi-
larly, both countries did not recognize the PRC's sovereignty
over Taiwan based on reality.
Now that Taiwan has enunciated its position of recognizing
the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan, the Japanese government will
evidently be placed in a difficult spot when the Diet's debate on
the new "guideline" begins. One can well imagine such a situation
by recalling the debate of 1990.
In 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Japanese government
proposed a "United Nations Peaceful Cooperation Act" to the Diet
so as to enable Japan to cooperate with military actions author-
ized by UN resolutions. Japan's objective was not to participate
directly in military actions but to give rear support to the
multinational forces. The transport of weapons and ammunition to
the multinational forces by Japan's self-defense force then
became an issue. The opposition party objected on the ground that
transport of weapons and ammunition was tantamount to engaging
in military action abroad. The government replied: "This is
strictly rear support. It will not violate the constitution since
transport of weapons and ammunition will not be carried out at
the frontline. "The opposition pursued: "Where do you delineate
the frontline?" The government's answer was: "That can only be
judged according to the situation prevailing at that time." When
pressed further on this vague answer, Prime Minister Kaibe
finally said "You all say you don't understand at that time.' I
don't understand it either. We don't really anticipate war." The
Diet chamber burst into laughter with this incoherent answer. Of
course, the act was aborted and Japan was unable to cooperate
with the multinational forces except for the offering of funds.
Under the new "guideline," the self-defense force is to
provide more active support to the US forces, so debate in the
Diet is not likely to proceed smoothly. The Social Democratic
Party and other pro-Chinese factions will forcefully demand that
Taiwan be excluded as an object of the Japan-US Security Treaty.
Naturally, they are bound to make use of Chang Chengyu's
pronouncement. They will demand the exclusion of Taiwan and say:
"Since Taiwan also recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan,
the Taiwan problem is China's domestic problem." Against this,
what persuasive response can the Japanese government come up
with? So long as Taiwan does not change its current position, the
prospects are dim.
Some may think even if Taiwan is excluded from the scope of
the Japan-US Security Treaty, singlehanded actions by American
forces will be possible based on the Taiwan Relations Act. But
this is incorrect.
This is obvious by considering just the minesweeping opera-
tion. According to the new "guideline," minesweeping operations
are to be carried out by Japan's self-defense force. Needless to
say, the US Navy is by far the most powerful of all navies of the
world. But the US Navy is very weak in terms of minesweeping
ships. The US 7th Fleet, which in fact is based in Japan, has
only two minesweepers. The seaborne self-defense force, whose
sole objective is to defend Japan's long shorelines, possesses
45 minesweepers. When a large number of mines are scattered at
both ends of the Taiwan Strait, it is apparent even the peerless
US Navy may not be able to fully exert its capabilities without
Japan's cooperation.
For Taiwan's Survival, the Fictitious
Territories Need to be Discarded
From the above discussion it should be clear how dangerous it
is for Taiwan to recognize the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan.
Both Chiang Kaishek and Chiang Cheng-kuo definitely did not
recognize PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. On the contrary, Chiang
Kaishek denied all sovereignty of the PRC and claimed the ROC had
sovereignty over territory governed by the PRC. This was why the
ROC was expelled from the UN, lost diplomatic relations with all
major nations of the world and ended up with its isolated status
today. While leaders of the ROC regime mouth various viewpoints,
according to the ROC constitution the ROC's position on
sovereignty remains the same as that during Chiang Kaishek's
time. This is clear from the fact the ROC map still includes the
territory of the PRC.
Chang Chengyu may have made this queer statement exactly
because such fiction is not acceptable to the international com-
munity. But once the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan is recognized,
both the Japan-US Security Treaty and the Taiwan Relations Act
will lose their function in regards to Taiwan and Taiwan will be
completely isolated.
Is Chang Chengyu solely responsible for this? That is not so.
Chang Chengyu's viewpoint is a logical conclusion of the position
taken recently by Kuomintang leaders. Kuomintang leaders from
President Li Tenghui down have repeatedly said "There is only one
China. China is divided and governed separately." If "China" is
one nation, then there is also one national sovereignty. Having
to recognize the PRC's sovereignty and yet unable to deny the
ROC's sovereignty, Chang Chengyu may have in anguish come up with
the "shared sovereignty" theory. But what is this "China?" Is
there another country called "China" aside from the PRC and the
ROC? No such entity exists anywhere.
Is "China" a geographical designation then? If so, it has
nothing to do with territorial attribution. For example, there is
exactly one American continent. But not all nations which exist
on the American continent belong to the country whose state name
is America. Only the territory of the United States of America
belongs to the United States. A territory is attributed to a
state; it is not attributed to a geographical designation.
Whether Taiwan belongs to the Chinese mainland or the Pacific
Ocean geographically, it has no bearing on the problem of
Taiwan's attribution as a state. Since state sovereignty belongs
to the state, naturally state sovereignty is not related to
geographical designation.
Until recently, President Li Tenghui has been saying:
"Currently one China does not exist. One China will commence its
existence after unification." It is not the intent to debate the
issue of unification versus independence here. The issue at hand
is a nonexistent nation called "China."
Political judgment should be based on reality. It is an
undeniable reality that the People's Republic of China exists on
the Chinese mainland and the Republic of China exists on Taiwan.
By ignoring this reality, Taiwan has become isolated from the
international community. The present difficulties in Kuomintang
diplomacy is also due to this disregard of reality.
As President Li Tenghui said on September 9, in Panama: "The
only reason other nations do not recognize our country is China's
hegemonic intervention." The Kuomintang regime blames Taiwan's
international isolation on China. But China's obstruction is
actually a minor cause. The thirty small nations which still
recognize Taiwan now should give proof of this. If Chinese inter-
vention is the reason for the inability to recognize Taiwan, then
the powerless small nations will be the first to sever diplomatic
relations with Taiwan and recognize China. To put it bluntly,
these small nations do not take international law into their
purview but simply select Taiwan or China based on a judgment as
to which recognition will bring economic advantage.
However, responsible nations may not disregard international
law. The official territory of the Republic of China includes not
only the People's Republic of China but also the Mongolian
nation. The Republic of China in fact exercises sovereignty over
only one-three hundredth of the domain over which it claims
sovereignty. An indispensable prerequisite of a sovereign state
is the actual exercise of sovereignty on the main portion of the
domain over which sovereignty is claimed. The Republic of China
is an independent nation but not a sovereign state. Not being a
sovereign state, it logically cannot be recognized by other
nations. To win recognition by the nations of the world, Taiwan
will need to officially abandon the fiction that "The Republic of
China possesses sovereignty over the Chinese mainland." Taiwan
will be able to join the international community and establish a
security system only by doing so. Playing with the non-existent
"China fiction" will invite an unfortunate outcome which no one
in Taiwan wants.
But then why did President Li, who has said "One China does
not exist now," move backward so much? Judging from his record,
President Li is a rational man who calmly faces reality and
implements policies as they become feasible. The retrogression
from the recognition that "One China does not exist" to the
"fictitious China" cannot be his real intention. Perhaps the
conservative wing inside the Kuomintang opposes President Li's
realism, relying on "one China," which has been national policy
since Chiang Kaishek's days.
However, intraparty struggle is not the issue here. The issue
concerns Taiwan and the fate of all residents of Taiwan. Fortu-
nately, in a country ruled by law, statements made by a cabinet
member or even by those made by the President are not valid when
they represent positions contrary to the constitution. What
should be done is to go back to the constitution and correct its
fictitious portions. To that end, the people of Taiwan need to
loudly demand "discard the fictitious territories." Because while
sovereignty belongs to the state, the citizens are the country's
sovereigns.
|