| WUFI Homepage |
Due to the Tiananmen incident of 1989, China was sanctioned
by the international community and US-China relations, which had
been improving, suddenly worsened. Thereafter, the collapse of
the socialist systems centered in the Soviet Union made China
fearful of "peaceful change" (i.e., the overthrow of the Chinese
Communist regime through peaceful means). To guard the communist
authoritarian rule, China took a hard line abroad, thus further
deepening its isolation from the rest of the world.
In 1992 China adopted its law of territorial waters, which
designated the entire South China Sea as Chinese territory, and
the Chinese navy occupied several islands in the South China Sea
with the ostensible purpose of defending the marine resources.
Tension with the nations of Southeast Asia rose.
Reacting to Taiwan President Lee Tenghui's visit to America
in June 1995, China conducted military exercises from July 1995
on to intimidate Taiwan. In March 1996, the first democratic
Presidential election was held in Taiwan. Judging this to be an
act to promote "Taiwan independence," China repeated large-scale
military exercises, including firing missiles to seas near Taiwan.
To counter China's threat to Taiwan, the US sent two aircraft
carrier fleets. Tension between the US and China rose to an
extreme height, even causing talks of a war between the US and
China.
In April 1996, President Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto
conferred in Tokyo and announced the "Joint Declaration on Japan-
US Security An Alliance for the 21st Century." The Joint Declara-
tion set forth the goal of strengthening the Japan-US alliance in
order to preserve the peace and security of the Asia-Pacific area.
In view of such developments, China has shifted its foreign
policy. In a war with the US, China could lose everything. The
mere heightening of military tension would severely damage the
Chinese economy, which is being developed with the injection of
foreign capital under the policy of "reform and liberalization."
The member states of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) regard China to be the greatest threat and are
intensifying mutual cooperation to preserve their security.
First, China approached the ASEAN members to pledge that China
would never become a military superpower, and to stress that
China would give highest priority to economic development and
"peace of the Asian Pacific region was most important to China."
China rolled out its "reconciliation diplomacy" not only to
neighboring states but also to many other countries in an effort
to impress upon them China's "peaceful intentions."
China's greatest objective is to improve relations with the
US, which has become the world's sole superpower. In November,
1996, at the APEC unofficial conference of heads of states in
the Phillippines, China's President Jiang Zemin conferred with
President Clinton and agreed that the US and China will try to
establish "strategic dialogue relationship" and "cooperative
partnership." While it is not clear what this "cooperative part-
nership" means, in April of that year when President Yeltsin
visited China, Russia and China have already given their assent
to "construct a strategic, cooperative partnership." China has
signed similar joint proclamations with many other countries
since then.
China's "reconciliation diplomacy" towards America is
directed mainly to US business interests. American businesses
regard China as the world's largest potential market and are
increasingly vocal in demanding improvement of relations with
China. Many former high government officials speak for such US
businesses and China and operate as the so-called "New China
Lobby." According to The Coming Conflict with China by Richard
Bernstein and Ross Munro, former Secretaries of State Henry
Kissinger and Alexander Haig are at the center of the New China
Lobby. Through powerful activities of the China Lobby, a mood
was created in America to accept reconciliation with China.
In November 1997, president Jiang Zemin visited America,
exchanged views with President Clinton and a US-China joint
statement was issued.
With the statement, both countries agreed to build a
"constructive, strategic partnership," while recognizing there
were large differences of opinion regarding human rights between
the two countries. As for Taiwan, while China asserted that
"Taiwan is the most important issue in US-China relations," the
US merely replied that it would continue to support the "One
China" policy.
At the White House joint press interview after the summit
meeting, while President Clinton maintained that the Taiwan
issue "should be settled peacefully by the peoples of Taiwan and
China," President Jiang Zemin stated "in the event of Taiwan
independence or intervention by foreign powers, China's use of
force is possible."
The joint statement was devoid of concrete substance and
did not appear to bring about significant change in US-China
relations. However, afterward China elevated the importance of
the agreement to construct a US-China strategic partnership and
began to emphasize that it is feasible if "Taiwan independence"
can be prevented.
Acceding to Nye's Proposal Means Taiwan's Ruin
In January of this year, former Defense Secretary Perry
paid a visit to China one week prior to Defense Secretary Cohen's
China visit. It is alleged that Mr. Perry was asked by the US
government to consult with the Chinese side in order to facili-
tate dialogue between Taiwan and China.
After visiting China, Mr. Perry went to Taiwan and met with
Taipei Mayor Chen Shui-bian and Chairman of the Democratic Pro-
gressive Party (DPP) Hsu Hsing-liang, both prospective presiden-
tial candidates, and told them "You have the potential to take
the reins of the government in the future. But independence
means Taiwan's ruin. It will be a mistake to think America will
come to Taiwan's aid." Mr. Perry advised that even if the DPP,
whose party platform is Taiwan independence, were to gain power,
it should not implement independence.
On March 5, former presidential assistant in charge of
national security Anthony Lake gave a speech in Taipei. Mr. Lake
repeatedly stressed "America will never sacrifice Taiwan," mindful
of the Taiwanese people's adverse reaction to the Perry statements.
But he implicitly opposed Taiwan independence by saying "Taiwan
must not precipitate unnecessary conflict with China." Mr. Lake
also urged the early resumption of dialogue with China.
On March 8, Mr. Joseph Nye's article was published. Four
days later, it was announced that President Clinton's China visit,
originally set for November this year, would be moved forward by
five months.
Mr. Nye, who served as Assistant Defense Secretary until
last December, is the person who advocated America's "strategic
ambiguity" towards Taiwan. In his current article, however, he
turns around to argue for "clearing up the dangerous ambiguity
about Taiwan." His proposal consists of three items.
1. The US should clearly state its opposition to formal Taiwan
independence. It should also say that if Taiwan were to
declare independence, the US would actively discourage other
countries from recognizing Taiwan independence. At the same
time, however, Washington would express its objection to
China's use of force against Taiwan.
2. Once Taiwan forswears independence, the US would ask China to
permit Taiwan's participation in more international organiza-
tions and to give Taiwan more international living space.
The US would also ask that China's Taiwan policy be based on
the Hong Kong style "one-country, two-systems" approach.
3. The United States should demand that Taiwan pledge decisively
not to formally declare independence.
If Taiwan were to accept Nye's proposal, its future prospects
would be entirely lost.
For Taiwan to publicly forswear independence is tantamount
to declaring that Taiwan is not an independent state. Such an
act would only lead to a misconception that Taiwan is a colony
or a territorial possession among foreign countries. This would
close the path to new diplomatic relations with other nations and
make it impossible for Taiwan to participate in international
organizations where membership is limited to sovereign states.
Taiwan would be permanently barred from the United Nations and
other international security structures.
In the future, when China's military power becomes an effec-
tive deterrent against the US, how effective would America's
objection to China's use of force against Taiwan be? When China
invades Taiwan under that situation, Taiwan can only fight alone
or surrender.
Mr. Nye proposes that the "one-country, two-systems" approach
be applied to Taiwan, as was done in Hong Kong.
To absorb Taiwan with the "one-country, two-systems" approach
has been China's consistent policy ever since Deng Xiaoping first
advanced the idea. Mr. Nye calls it a Taiwan "deal." This is
nothing but the capitulation of the United States to China.
Why should Taiwan be treated the same way as Hong Kong,
which was a British colony? 91.7% of British Hong Kong was land
which England leased for a period of 99 years. England had to
return the land since the lease period expired in 1997. The
remaining area of Hong Kong was only 84.8 square kilometers.
Great Britain had no choice but to "return" the balance of the
land in response to China's demand, since the small area could
not survive if segregated from China.
China's application of the "one-country, two-systems" to
Hong Kong was not a concession on China's part. It was simply
to China's economic advantage to do so.
Taiwan is an independent country, not a colony of anyone.
Besides, Taiwan has never been ruled by the People's Republic of
China (PRC). Why should Taiwan be swallowed up by China?
What is "Taiwan Independence"?
Mr. Nye is quite ignorant about both Taiwan's history and
its current reality. When Mr. Nye uses the words "Taiwan
independence," what does he mean exactly? "Taiwan independence"
means different things to China, to Taiwan's Kuomintang (KMT)
regime, and to the Taiwanese in favor of independence.
China advocates "one China." This "China" of course means
the PRC. And China asserts that "Taiwan is part of China." It
is evident to all that this assertion is completely fictitious
and does not reflect current reality. All it means is that
Taiwan is included in the PRC's map of China. China says it
"will not permit" Taiwan's separatist independence. How can
Taiwan be separated from China when in reality it is not part
of China? China has never explained the meaning of what it calls
"Taiwan's separatist independence." Why is it necessary to
arbitrarily guess the meaning of "Taiwan independence," which
has never been defined by China, and play up to it?
Like China, the KMT regime also espouses "One China." But
here "China" means the Republic of China (ROC). The KMT regime
further maintains that the ROC possesses sovereignty over the
territory of the PRC. However, this is clearly pure fiction.
This merely indicates that China is included in the map of the
ROC. Recently, the KMT has called itself "Republic of China on
Taiwan." But it has not officially abandoned its claim of sove-
reignty against China thus far.
When the KMT regime mentions "Taiwan independence," it means
giving up the name -- the Republic of China (ROC). Since the KMT
regime actually rules only Taiwan (including the Pescadores), with
the exception of small Chinese offshore islands (Quemoy, Matsu),
when Taiwan is divorced from the ROC name, only Quemoy and Matsu
will remain as ROC territory and the Republic of China will in
fact disappear. The KMT clings to the Republic of China name to
placate the sentiment of party members and mainlanders (those who
moved to Taiwan from China after World War II) with emotional
attachment to the ROC.
"Taiwan independence" advocated by the Taiwanese independence
activists means independence from the "Republic of China" regime.
This ROC regime is a system of government by which the mainlanders
ruled the Taiwanese, under the fiction that "The Republic of China
alone is the legitimate government of China." The KMT was an alien
power, a colonial regime which ruled the Taiwanese by force. The
independence activists wanted freedom from this system of colonial
rule and call it "Taiwan independence." However, the political
structure by which the mainlanders ruled the Taiwanese collapsed
when the "life-long legislators" (members of the Legislative Yuan
and National Assembly), consisting mostly of mainlanders, were all
relieved of their duties in 1991 and general election was held for
the National Assembly the same year and for the Legislative Yuan
in 1992. Furthermore, the first direct presidential election by
the whole nation was held in 1996 and Taiwan's political system
was completely democratized. Nevertheless, the make-believe that
"the Republic of China" is the legitimate government of China"
still remains.
The "Taiwan independence" espoused by the Taiwanese indepen-
dence activists means doing away with the this make-believe, es-
tablishing the ROC's sovereign territory which conforms to current
reality, and changing the state name to Taiwan. Therefore,
"Taiwan independence" as advocated by the independence activists
is Taiwan's domestic affair, with which China should not interfere.
Needless to say, neither should the US and other countries
intervene.
Two Disasters in US Taiwan Policy
The US has twice erred grievously in its Taiwan policy in the
past and thereby has done great harm to the Taiwanese people.
The first error was ordering Chiang Kai-shek to occupy Taiwan
after the allied powers won the war against Japan. In 1943 when
the three allied leaders, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister
Churchill and Chairman Chiang Kai-shek conferred in Cairo, it was
agreed that Taiwan be given to the Republic of China at President
Roosevelt's suggestion. This was not demanded by Chiang Kai-shek.
Actually, Chiang Kai-shek was not even concerned about Taiwan,
which was ceded to Japan by the Qing Dynasty prior to the ROC's
birth. Fearing that Chiang Kai-shek might drop out of the allied
forces, President Roosevelt merely wanted to ingratiate himself
with Chiang Kai-shek. However, since any territorial change re-
sulting from war must be implemented by a peace treaty, this
agreement was not effectual in international law. There was no
need to have Chiang Kai-shek occupy Taiwan.
As evidenced in the "China White Papers" published by the US
State Department in 1949, the American government knew that the
Chiang Kai-shek regime was extremely corrupt and tyrannical.
How much misery would befall the Taiwanese people once Chiang Kai-
shek took possession of Taiwan should have been foreseeable. As
a matter of fact, for more than 40 years the people of Taiwan
were forced to endure a rule of terror, imposed by the despotic
regime of the two Chiangs father and son.
America's second mistake was made in 1971, when the Republic
of China was expelled from the United Nations.
The US government supported the ROC's UN seat as a means of
barring China's participation in the United Nations, since there
was a strong anti-Chinese feeling in the United States which
fought China in the Korean War. Because the ROC occupied a per-
manent member's seat in the Security Council as representative
of China, the "issue of Chinese representation" was debated in
the UN General Assembly every year. When the number of countries
supporting China's entry into the UN increased, the US proposed
that the issue of Chinese representation be designated an "impor-
tant question" requiring a resolution by a two-thirds majority of
the General Assembly. The designation of an "important question"
is done with a simple majority of the General Assembly. By 1971,
however, it was clearly difficult to pass the "important question"
resolution.
Thus the Nixon administration urged Chiang Kai-shek to give
up the permanent member's seat. Once the ROC surrendered the
permanent member's seat, the "issue of Chinese representation"
would have disappeared. Since there was no reason to expel the
ROC from the general membership of the UN, the problem would have
been resolved by China's entry into the UN as a permanent member
of the Security Council.
Judging from Taiwan's newspapers which spoke for the Chiang
regime at that time, Chiang Kai-shek was leaning toward surrender-
ing the permanent member's seat. Since the Chiang regime was
then protected by US military assistance and the US-China Mutual
Defense Treaty, Chiang Kai-shek would have no choice but to give
up the permanent member's seat had the US applied a bit more
pressure. The US, however, was not familiar with the real situa-
tion in Taiwan. It proposed that the expulsion of the ROC be
designated as an "important question" and was defeated in the
voting.
If Chiang Kai-shek was made to give up the permanent member's
seat at that time, China would have joined the UN as China's
representative and as a permanent member of the Security Council.
The ROC would have kept general membership in the UN as Taiwan's
representative and the international community would have recog-
nized that China and Taiwan were separate countries.
Solution to the Taiwan Issue
It is an undeniable fact that there exists on Taiwan a
country called the Republic of China. Among the world's 193
nations Taiwan's population of 21,600,000 ranks 43rd, its Gross
National Product (GNP) of US $286 billion ranks 17th, and its per
capita GNP of US $13,000 ranks 25th. Taiwan's population is
roughly equal to that of Peru or Venezuela. Its GNP is similar
to that of Argentina or Mexico. Its per capita GNP ranks with
Spain or New Zealand.
When compared with China, Taiwan's population is less than
one-fiftieth that of China. Taiwan's GNP is greater than one-
third of China's GNP, and its per capital GNP is twenty times that
of China.
The solution of the Taiwan issue must mean that this country
is accepted by the international community as a sovereign state
equal to other nations of the world, that it participates in
international security arrangements and that the preservation of
its national security and the freedom and democracy, which were
won by the 21,600,000 citizens with blood and sweat, be made
possible.
From the perspective of international law, it is also improper
to isolate Taiwan from the community of nations.
The Chiang regime occupied Taiwan in accordance with general
order number one, issued by the supreme commander of the allied
powers on September 2, 1945. It was a temporary occupation of a
defeated country by the victorious nation, similar in nature to
the occupation of Japan by American forces and the occupation of
Manchuria (China's northeast region) by the Soviet Union.
The peace treaty with Japan, signed in 1951, decided Japan's
surrender of Taiwan. But Taiwan's status was not decided due to
differing views among the allied powers. Therefore, the official
position of the US heretofore has been that "Taiwan's status is
in abeyance" and Japan holds the same view.
Thereafter, the principle of people's right to self-determi-
nation was firmly established in international law. Hence, this
principle must be applied to Taiwan, whose legal status is still
undecided.
In the International Covenants on Human Rights adopted by
the UN General Assembly in 1966, both the "International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" (A Covenant) and the
"International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (B Cove-
nant) proclaim "peoples' right of self-determination" in Article
1 in identical language and provide that:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue
of that right they freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
A people's right of self-determination is the most fundamen-
tal human right stipulated in international law. If the United
States, whose basic national policy is to protect human rights,
were to deny the Taiwanese people their right of self-determina-
tion, then America would lose faith with the world community.
It would desecrate the soul of America's founding and injure
Americans themselves.
America should recognize that a great majority of the Tai-
wanese people do not want unification with China. While the KMT
says its basic party policy is "unification" through dialogue,
its conditions for unification are "freedom, democracy and parity
of wealth." No one can predict when China will evolve into a free
and democratic country. It is difficult to imagine when "parity
of wealth" between Taiwan and China may be achieved, where the
difference in per capita GNP is twenty-fold. One can readily
understand that the KMT is not seriously considering unification
with China by examining its conditions for unification, which are
virtually impossible to meet. The KMT is simply bound by Chiang
Kai-shek's legacy of the so-called "unification" policy.
From the viewpoint of both current reality and international
law, there can be no just resolution of the Taiwan problem aside
from Taiwan's entry into the international community. To join
the international community, however, Taiwan must first change
itself.
The ROC was expelled from the UN and became isolated from
the international community because it claimed that "the ROC
government was the legitimate government of China." To this day
the ROC has not discarded this fiction. The official map of the
ROC still includes not just the PRC but also Mongolia, which
became independent nearly eighty years ago. As a result, the ROC
actually exercises sovereignty over only one-three hundredth of
the territory over which it claims sovereignty. Thus, it may be
difficult for the international community to recognize the ROC as
a sovereign state, even though in reality the ROC exists as an
independent country.
America is urging the resumption of negotiations between
Taiwan and China. It is very desirable that through dialogue
between Taiwan and China mutual trust develops between the two
countries and that negotiation moves forward. But the talks
stall at the negotiation table due to mutual suspicions. Under
current conditions, where each side claims the other's territory
as its own, mutual trust is not feasible. Both China and Taiwan
do not recognize the sovereignty of the other party. Since the
negotiation cannot be between nations, its format is talks between
non-governmental entities. Thus, Taiwan and China cannot even
make treaties or agreements between each other as nations.
The US should advise Taiwan now that "the ROC should recog-
nize the territory and sovereignty of the PRC and then ask the
PRC to likewise recognize the ROC." When the Taiwan side declares
that it "recognizes and respects China's territory and sovereignty,"
China is not likely to attack Taiwan by force on the ground that
"this is an unacceptable act of promoting Taiwan independence."
The international community surely will not tolerate such unprin-
cipled behavior.
By Takayuki Munakata
Specialist on Taiwan Issues
US Secretary of State Albright stated in a press interview,
held in Beijing on April 30, that "America will not recognize
Taiwan's independence or its entry into the United Nations."
She hinted at the possibility of a new Sino-US joint communique
during President Clinton's China visit in June. Does this
indicate that the US government is planning to accept the Nye
proposal? If that is the case, America will deny the Taiwanese
people their right of self-determination and abandon the hereto-
fore basic national policy of supporting human rights. A people's
right of self-determination is the most important and fundamental
of all human rights. If Taiwan is swallowed up by China due to
US policy, Taiwan will lose its independence, and the Taiwanese
people will also be deprived of the freedom and democracy which
they won after more than forty years of hard struggle. Such a
policy will go against the founding principles of America, which
won independence from Great Britain in search of freedom and
democracy. It will also inflict a titanic wound to the soul of
all Americans.
American policy towards China appears to be undergoing a
major change from confrontation to cooperation. Needless to say,
no one will object to this welcome event. The fear, however, is
that Taiwan will be sacrificed as a pawn in US-Chinese reconcili-
ation.
Such symptoms are evident in former Assistant Secretary of
Defense Joseph Nye's article entitled "A Taiwan Deal, " which was
published in the March 8 issue of The Washington Post. Let us
review the history of the Taiwan problem before we scrutinize the
main issue.
China Shifts Foreign Policy
After the Crisis in the Taiwan Strait
| WUFI Homepage |