Purpose and summary 


   Through this White Paper, the overseas Taiwanese community in
Canada, Europe and the United States - as represented by the
organizations listed at the end of this Paper - wish to promote a
better understanding in North America and Europe of our homeland
Taiwan, and to gain support for acceptance of Taiwan as a full and
equal member in the international community.

   On the following pages we first give a brief historical background.
Then we present our arguments from a legal and political perspective,
and conclude with a policy recommendation based on the fundamental
principles of democracy, respect for human rights, universality of 
UN membership, self-determination, and peace and stability.

Introduction

   Taiwan is at a crossroads. During the past decade, the people 
on the island of Taiwan, with the support of the overseas Taiwanese
com-munity, have transformed the island from a repressive one-party
dictatorship to a blossoming multi-party democracy.

   In spite of this progress, Taiwan has not been accepted yet by
the international community as a full and equal member. China
continues to block its membership in international organizations,
and threatens to attack if the island moves further in the direction
of de jure independence.

   In 1995-1996, during the run-up to the first direct presidential
elections in Taiwan, the Communist Chinese militarily threatened
Taiwan and launched missiles at the island, which finally prompted
the Clinton administration ¡X after a considerable delay ¡X to take
action and send two aircraft carriers to the area.

   In mid-1998, during his visit to China, Mr. Clinton went
significantly beyond the careful ambiguity of earlier U.S.
formulations, and pronounced the so-called "Three no's": no support
for "Two Chinas" or "One China, One Taiwan", no support for an
independent Taiwan, and no support for Taiwan membership of any
organization "¡Kfor which statehood is a requirement".

   Mr. Clinton's statements regarding Taiwan were subsequently
rejected by the Congress and repudiated by almost unanimous votes
in the U.S. House and Senate. They were also criticized by numerous
commentaries in virtually all major U.S. publications. Still, they
were a slap in the face of Taiwan's democratic movement, which has
worked for more than four decades for self-determination,
independence, and acceptance of Taiwan in the international
community. 

   The next several years will be of crucial importance to the future
of the island. At the end of 1998, elections for 225 seats in the
Legislative Yuan (Taiwan's parliament) are being held. Just over a
year later, in March 2000, presidential elections will be held. At
that time, the DPP may win the presidency. 

   At this critical juncture, we as Taiwanese citizens of the world,
appeal to the international community - and in particular to the
United States, Canada and other nations that profess to adhere to
democratic principles - to: 
 
1. Endorse that the people of Taiwan have the right to determine
   their own future under the principle of self-determination as
   enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; 

2. Urge China to renounce the use of force and accept Taiwan as
   a friendly neighboring state instead of perpetuating the 
   hostility and rivalry dating from the Chinese Civil War which 
   they fought against the Kuomintang five decades ago; and 

3. Accept Taiwan as a full and equal member of the international
   family of nations, including the United Nations. 

Historical background
From 1600s through 1949

   At issue is whether Taiwan should be considered part of China- 
as is contended by the authorities in Beijing. This has also been 
the traditional position of the Kuomintang authorities in Taipei, 
who came over from China after 1945. 

   A brief survey of Taiwan's almost 400 years of recorded history
shows that Taiwan was never an integral part of China. 

a. The most comprehensive historical records on Taiwan go back about
   some 350 years, to the period of the Dutch occupation of Taiwan 
   (1624-1662). These show the presence of the original Malay-
   Polynesian aborigine population, but no signs of any significant
   Chinese settlement or any Chinese administrative structure. 

   In fact, recent research in New Zealand has shown that the 
   Polynesian and Maori populations of Australia, New Zealand and
   Polynesia in all probability originated from Taiwan. 

   Subsequent to the Dutch period and the rule of Ming loyalist 
   Koxinga and his son (1662-1683) there was increasing migration 
   from the coastal provinces of China to Taiwan. However, these 
   people came to flee the wars and famines in the Chinese coastal
   and provinces, did not come to settle Taiwan on behalf of the 
   authorities. The successive Ch'ing Imperial Governments paid scant
   attention to the island. 

   For a brief period, from 1887 to 1895, the Manchus declared Taiwan
   a province of China, in a vain attempt to stop Japan's expansion
   in a southerly direction. This failed, and after the 1894-1895 
   Sino-Japanese War, through the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, the  
   Ch'ing Imperial government ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity. 

   The Taiwanese didn't like the idea of incorporation into Japan,
   and established ¡X with the assistance of disenchanted Manchu 
   officials ¡X the Taiwan Democratic Republic, the first independent
   republic in Asia, on 25 May 1895. 

   A few days later, on 29 May 1895, a Japanese military force of 
   over 12,000 soldiers landed in Northern Taiwan, and started to  
   crush the movement. On 21 October 1895, Japanese imperial troops 
   entered Tainan, the southern capital of the Taiwan Democratic
   Republic, ending its short life. For the next 50 years, until the  
   end of World War II, Taiwan was a colony of Japan. 

b. In 1945, Taiwan was not "returned to China" but was occupied on 
   behalf of the Allied Forces. General Douglas McArthur, as the 
   Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, authorized a temporary 
   military occupation of Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek's army on behalf 
   of the Allies. They started exercising administrative control over  
   the island as a "trustee on behalf of the Allied Powers." 

   Initially, the Taiwanese were glad to get rid of the Japanese, 
   but soon their joy turned into sorrow and anger: the newcomers from 
   China turned out to be corrupt and repressive, looting the island 
   and treating the Taiwanese as conquered, second-class citizens. 

   The tension burst into the open in the February 28 massacre of 
   1947, when a small incident in Taipei led to island-wide 
   demonstrations. The Kuomintang was initially taken aback, but 
   secretly sent troops from China, which started to round up and 
   execute a whole generation of leading figures, students, lawyers 
   and doctors. In all, between 18,000 and 28,000 people were killed. 
   During the "white terror" of the following years, thousands of 
   people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the 
   KMT's repressive KGB-style security apparatus, the Taiwan Garrison 
   highly Command. 

c. In 1949, Taiwan did not "split off from China", but was occupied 
   by the losing side in the Chinese Civil War. In that year, Chiang 
   Kai-shek lost the war in China to the Communists, and fled to 
   Taiwan. There he established the remainder of his regime. The 
   contention that Taiwan "split off" from China is thus false: it 
   was not part of China in the first place, but officially still 
   under Japanese sovereignty (see below). It only became a bone of 
   contention when two warring parties ¡X Nationalists and Communists
   ¡X perpetuated a Civil War in which the Taiwanese themselves never
   had any part.

1949 - 1987: Occupation by Chinese Nationalists, 38 years of 
Martial Law 

   For the next four decades, the people of Taiwan lived under Martial 
Law, while the KMT authorities attempted to maintain the fiction that 
they ruled all of China, and would some day "recover" the mainland. 
The Chinese mainlanders who came over with Chiang Kai-shek 
constituted only 15 percent of the population of the island, but were 
able to maintain themselves in a position of power over the 85 percent 
native Taiwanese through tight control of the political system, 
police, military, educational system and media. 


   The 1971 UN acceptance of the Beijing regime as the representative 
of China, the 1972 visit by President Nixon to China, and particularly 
the December 1978 United States switch in recognition from the 
Kuomintang regime to the Beijing regime hit hard in Taiwan. At the 
same time, it gave impetus to the growth and evolution of Taiwan's 
democratic opposition movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

   The Kaohsiung Incident of December 1979 galvanized the Taiwanese 
on the island and overseas into political action. The Tangwai 
("outside-the-party") democratic opposition started to question the 
KMT's anachronistic claim to represent all of China, and began to 
work towards ending the 40-year old Martial Law. In September 1986, 
this movement culminated in the formation of the Democratic 
Progressive Party, which soon grew into a full-fledged opposition 
party. 

1987 - 1992: Transition to a democratic political system

   Martial Law was finally lifted in 1987. This was largely due to 
international pressure as well as pressure from within Taiwan, where 
the democratic opposition became increasingly organized and vocal. 
Of special importance were the efforts by U.S. Senators Edward M. 
Kennedy and Claiborne Pell, and Congressmen Jim Leach and Stephen 
Solarz, who - prompted by the Taiwanese-American community - held 
numerous hearings questioning the lack of human rights and democracy 
in Taiwan. 

   In 1987, Martial Law was replaced by a less-stringent National 
Security Law, but it wasn't until 1991 that the KMT dropped the claim 
to rule all of China, and that aging Nationalist Chinese legislators ¡X 
elected on the mainland in 1947 ¡X were sent into retirement. Since 
then the island has made major strides in the direction of a fully 
democratic political system. To this day, however, the KMT 
authorities continue to cling to their outdated claim that "Taiwan 
is part of China." 

1992 - present: Democracy, and yet no international recognition

   Since 1992, Taiwan has evolved into a free nation with increasingly 
democratic institutions. Although elections are still marred by vote 
buying, the election process as a whole is increasingly fair and open. 
Checks and balances do not function fully yet, but the Legislative 
Yuan does play an increasingly influential role in checking the powers 
of the Executive Yuan and the President. While the Judiciary is still 
significantly under the control of the ruling Kuomintang, it is 
increasingly exerting its influence as an independent institution. 

   Although newspapers and magazines are increasingly objective in 
their reporting, the influence of the ruling Kuomintang is still 
pervasive in the written media. In the electronic media, however, 
the control of the Kuomintang is still predominant: the three major 
national TV stations are respectively owned by the Kuomintang, the 
military, and the Provincial Government. Two other stations are 
making inroads: one is owned by Hong Kong interests, and the other 
is leaning towards the opposition DPP. 

   This increasingly vibrant democratic nation-state is asking to 
be accepted as a full and equal member of the international community. 
Prompted by the democratic opposition of the DPP, the ruling 
Kuomintang started in 1993 to address the issue of membership in the 
United Nations. 

 International legal perspective

    From an international legal perspective, four defining events 
during the past century are of major importance to the status of 
Taiwan. 

   The first event took place in 1895, when the Japanese defeated 
the Manchus in the Sino-Japanese War, and China ceded Taiwan to Japan 
in perpetuity through the Treaty of Shimonoseki. 

   The second defining event was the 1945 "temporary occupation" of 
Taiwan by the forces of Chiang Kai-shek. As was clearly stated in 
Allied documents from that period, this was done "on behalf of the 
Allied Forces". As time went on, this occupation became rather 
permanent, but as the deliberations at San Francisco illustrate (see 
below), it did not change the formal legal status of the island. 

   The third defining event was the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty 
Conference, whereby the Allied Powers and Japan formally ended World 
War II. That treaty is important for the discussion on Taiwan's future, 
because it decided that Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan, but 
it did not specify a recipient. The majority of the conferees voiced 
the opinion that the views of the people of the island needed to be 
taken into account. 

   The British delegate stated that "In due course a solution must 
be found in accord with the purposes and principles of the Charter 
of the United Nations." The Egyptian delegate stated that specifying 
the recipient is to afford the opportunity to take into consideration 
the principle of self-determination and the expressed desire of the 
inhabitants of Taiwan." The French delegate stated that: "Taiwan's 
legal status must be determined one of these days, taking the wishes 
of the Formosan population into consideration." 

   The Charter of the UN contains article 1.2 which states that it 
is a purpose of the UN "To develop friendly relations among nations 
based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples..." The conclusion must be drawn that it 
was the intention of the attendants of the San Francisco Peace 
Conference that the people of Taiwan should determine the future 
status of the island based on the principle of self-determination. 
The San Francisco Peace Treaty is thus the one and only international 
treaty of the 20th Century which deals with the status of Taiwan. 

   The fourth defining event was the 1971-1972 switch of 
representation at the United Nations and the subsequent derecognition 
of the Kuomintang authorities as the government representing China. 
Contrary to general perception, this did not alter the status of 
Taiwan, because UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 dealt with the 
question who was the rightful representative of "China" in the United 
Nations, not with Taiwan's status. 

   The 1972 U.S.-China Shanghai Communique and other communiques - 
which are quoted so often as the basis for U.S. policy on this matter 
- cannot be determining factors in the debate on Taiwan's future, 
for the following reasons: 

   Firstly, because they were simply statements at the end of a 
meeting, and were not ratified, either by the US Congress or agreed 
upon by the international community, and thus do not have the weight 
of a treaty. Secondly, and most importantly, the communiques were 
arrived at without any involvement or representation of the people 
of Taiwan, and can thus not have any validity in determining the 
future of the island. 

   From an international legal perspective, it is thus essential that 
the debate about Taiwan's future is based on the fundamental 
principles enshrined in the UN Charter and the conclusions of the 
San Francisco Peace Treaty Conference. 

Political perspective 

   The present "One China" policy of the United States and other 
Western nations dates from the early 1970s. In the formulation of 
the Shanghai Communique it states that "¡KThe United States 
acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait 
maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of 
China." However, the policy must be seen against the background of the 
fact that in those days both the government in Beijing and the one in 
Taipei presented themselves as the legitimate rulers of all of China, 
and maintained the fiction that China included Taiwan. 

   The policy glaringly fails to take into account the views of the 
Taiwanese people, and thus violates the basic principles of democracy 
and self-determination. It also totally neglects the democratization 
and Taiwanization of the island's political structure which has takes 
place between 1972 and the present. 

1. The "One China" policy is at odds with democratic principles, 
   because in the early 1970s, Taiwan was under the harsh rule of the 
   Kuomintang's martial law, and the people of the island could not 
   voice their views on the status of the island. Their voice was not 
   heard, neither in the decisions at the United Nations, nor on the  
   occasion of the Shanghai Communique, which was arrived at without 
   any involvement or representation of the people of Taiwan. 

2. The "One China" policy also fails to consider that Taiwan of 1998 
   is totally different from the "Republic of China" of 1972: after 
   four decades of martial law under the Chinese Nationalist regime, 
   the people on the island have crafted a democratic system with a 
   distinct Taiwanese signature, and they have indicated clearly and 
   by a large majority that they do not wish to live under Chinese 
   rule Communist.  Through hard work and ingenuity, they have also 
   achieved the most prosperous and stable economies of East Asia, 
   with a per one of capita income of over $13,000 or 20 times that 
   of China. The Taiwanese will not peacefully give up their hard-won 
   democratic freedom and their economic achievements. 

   The increase in popular support for the DPP, the opposition party 
whose party charter includes Taiwan independence, illustrates that 
Taiwan is moving towards de jure independence. The local elections 
of November 1997 resulted in a DPP victory in virtually all major 
population centers. At the local level some 72 percent of the 
population in Taiwan is governed by DPP county- and city 
administrators. 

   As indicated in the introduction: in legislative elections in 
December 1998 the DPP may overtake the ruling Kuomintang, while in 
presidential elections in March 2000, the DPP will have a good chance 
of winning the presidency. 

   Opinion surveys show that an increasing majority of Taiwan's 21.8 
million people identifies itself as Taiwanese (as opposed to Chinese), 
and that support for Taiwan independence is growing. Opinion polls 
over the past year show an increasing majority on the island 
considering Taiwan to be a sovereign state separate from China and 
desiring their country to be a full and equal member of the 
international community. 

   It should thus be clear that the Kuomintang's traditional position 
that Taiwan and China are somehow part of a divided China is losing 
support in Taiwan itself, and is unacceptable to us in the overseas 
Taiwanese community. 

   Communist ideology, on the other hand, has lost all credibility 
in China itself. The Chinese Communist Party relies on strident 
nationalism to legitimize its authoritarian rule. China's aggressive 
policy towards Taiwan is based partly on nationalism and partly on 
the weakened civilian control over the Chinese military. 

Security and Strategic Considerations

   Because of its location, straddling the major sea-lanes from Japan 
and Korea in Northeast Asia to Southeast Asia, Taiwan is of great 
strategic importance for free trade in the region. 

   Over the past decade, the island has evolved as a stable economic 
and political player in the region, increasing its role in regional 
organizations and strengthening its bilateral ties with Japan and 
Korea and with the nations in Southeast Asia. 

   However, China's increasing propensity to bully its neighbors and 
ride roughshod over their concerns is causing deep concern in East 
Asia. China is also increasing its capabilities to project its 
military power: it has acquired advanced SU-27 fighter aircraft and 
Kilo-class submarines as well as destroyers from Russia. It is 
increasing its arsenal of missiles, and developing a new generation 
of high-speed and more accurate missiles that threaten Taiwan as well 
as U.S. forces deployed in the Far East. 


   While during the next five to ten years, China will not have the 
capability yet to overwhelm Taiwan's defenses, it will attack when 
it perceives it has a chance. 

   If Taiwan would be absorbed by China, the major waterways in East 
Asia would be under Chinese control - an unattractive prospect for 
the United States, Japan and nations such as South Korea. One result 
is that nuclear proliferation could well spread to Japan and the two 
Koreas. 

Policy Alternatives

 1. Status quo approach

   The approach presently followed by the United States and most other 
Western nations is recognition of the authorities in Beijing as the 
government of China, and of unofficial - mainly economic and cultural 
- relations with the authorities on Taiwan. 

   It preaches "don't-rock-the-boat", and practices a minimalist 
involvement in the political debate between Taiwan and China It hopes 
that the status quo will somehow evolve into a peaceful resolution 
of the differences. 

   However, this approach is at odds with reality, since it ignores 
the major advances Taiwan has made as a democratic nation, and the 
fact that present-day Taiwan is fundamentally different from the 
"Republic of China" of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. 

   It also neglects the aggressive and confrontational posture by 
China. If continued, this approach will increasingly allow China to 
push Taiwan into a corner, and isolate Taiwan in preparation of a 
Chinese push to "recover" the island. 

   In reality, the status quo thus represents a steady drift into 
greater isolation for Taiwan, and an increasing risk that China will 
attempt to bully Taiwan into submission through military, political 
and other types of intimidation. 

2. Geo-political approach
   According to the Kissingeresque geo-political thinking, China's 
importance as a global political player and as a market for Western 
goods supersedes any other considerations. Taiwan should not get in 
the way, and should be pressured to start unification discussions 
with China. 

   This approach would sacrifice the rights of a small nation, whose 
people have worked hard to gain their freedom, and who only very 
recently achieved democracy. 

   It would put democracy in East - and Southeast Asia as a whole 
at risk by accepting and condoning China's military threats and 
intimidation against its neighbors. 

   It would undermine the confidence that nations such as Japan and 
South Korea still have in American trustworthiness as an ally, and 
reduce the confidence in the credibility of its forward military 
presence in particular. 

   Such American softness on the Taiwan issue might well lead Japan 
and South Korea to reassess their posture, leading either to a 
hardening of their position (and increasing tension) or a softening, 
and thus to a lack of balance of power in the region. 

   Both approaches 1 and 2 should be discarded, and a clear and 
unequivocal choice should be made in favor of the third approach: 

3. "Basic principles" and "peace and stability" approach

   This approach emphasizes adherence to the basic principles of 
democracy, respect for human rights, universality of UN membership 
and self-determination, and peace and stability. 

Democracy 
   The people of Taiwan have achieved a remarkable transition from 
a repressive regime under the Kuomintang to a free and vibrant 
democracy at present. It would be a blatant violation of basic 
democratic principles if they were forced to "unify" with an 
undemocratic and repressive Chinese regime. 

Respect for Human Rights
   China's human rights record is blemished at best. There are still 
1,100 forced labor camps in China with an estimated population of 
6 to 8 million, including many political dissidents and religious 
believers. Repression of Tibetans and Muslims continues unabated. 
The People's Liberation Army engages in systematic harvesting and 
marketing of human organs extracted from executed prisoners. 

   This larger picture should not be forgotten when the Chinese 
government releases a few prominent dissidents for political effect. 
China's willingness to sign the UN Covenant on Political and Civil 
Rights is a hollow, cosmetic gesture when it denies the right of 
self-determination to the 21.8 million freedom-loving people of 
Taiwan. 

   China claims it has a right to take Taiwan by force, even though 
the Taiwanese people have indicated that they wish to keep their 
hard-won freedom and democracy. Giving in to Chinese pressure would 
be a major step backwards for human rights, not only for the people 
of Taiwan but for the people of Asia as a whole, including China. 

Universality and Self-determination 
   The Charter of the United Nations gives "universality" and 
"self-determination" as guiding principles for relations between 
peoples and nations. 

   Article 1(2) of the UN Charter states: "The purposes of the United 
Nations are: to develop friendly relations among nations based on 
respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples, and to 
take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

   Also, UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) of October 24, 1970 states that 
"¡Kall peoples have the right freely to determine without external 
interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, 
social and cultural development." So, the UN not only supports the 
right of self-determination, it encourages it. 

   Taiwan fulfils all requirements for being accepted as a full and 
equal member in the international community. With just under 22 
million people, Taiwan meets all three criteria for statehood 
specified in international law: it has a defined territory, a defined 
population and the ability to enter into ¡X and keep international 
agreements. 

   Furthermore,Taiwan is eminently qualified to be a member. Art. 
4 (1) of the UN Charter reads: "Membership is open to all ... 
peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the 
present Charter ...". Taiwan has not threatened or intimidated its 
neighbors, it is willing to accede to the UN and accept all 
obligations under the Charter. 

   If the U.S. and other democratic nations accede to Chinese demands, 
and deny the Taiwanese people their right of self-determination, and 
their right to join international organizations such as the United 
Nations, this will constitute a violation of a basic principle 
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, not to mention 
betrayal of the values of freedom and democracy. 

Peace and Stability
   Peace and stability in East Asia can only be maintained if there 
is a balance of power in the region. However, over the past decade 
China has been increasingly aggressive in laying territorial claims 
outside its borders. 

   A firmer and more consistent U.S. and European policy is thus 
needed, ready to assert U.S. and European interest in the peace and 
stability of the Asia-Pacific region. This approach, rather than the 
present accommodation approach, will help China's civilian leaders 
in adopting more moderate and peaceful policies. 

   The current policy of constructive engagement with China is 
dominated by the drive of corporate America and Europe for access 
to the Chinese market. The risk is that such a policy tends to turn 
into a policy of appeasement, resulting in undesirable consequences. 
The recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan are an example. 

   The weakening of the U.S.-Japan alliance is another. The U.S. and 
European nations need to adopt a more prudent China policy which gives 
long range peace and stability interests as much weight as short-term 
commercial profit. 

Our Appeal

   We as Taiwanese citizens of the world, appeal to the international 
community - and in particular to the United States, Canada and other 
nations that profess to adhere to democratic principles - to: 

1. Endorse that the people of Taiwan have the right to determine  
   their own future under the principle of self-determination as 
   enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; 

2. Urge China to renounce the use of force, and accept Taiwan as a 
   friendly neighboring state instead of perpetuating the hostility 
   and rivalry dating from the Civil War China fought against the 
   Kuomintang five decades ago; and 

3. Accept Taiwan as a full and equal member of the international 
   family of nations, including the United Nations. 
   
   Peaceful coexistence between Taiwan and China as two friendly 
nation-states is the only way through which peace and stability in 
East Asia can be guaranteed. 

   This is in the interest of the United States and others nations 
-- both those in the East Asia region and around the world -- because 
a China which respects its neighbors is more likely to develop a rule 
of law, to honor international agreements and commercial contracts. 

   The United States and other democratic nations around the world 
thus need to ensure that the people of Taiwan receive the opportunity 
to peacefully determine Taiwan's future by themselves, without any 
outside pressure ¡X military, political or otherwise. 

Organizations endorsing this White Paper: 
World Federation of Taiwanese Associations 
Taiwanese Canadian Association 
Taiwanese Association of America 
Federation of Taiwanese Associations in Europe 
World United Formosans for Independence 


North American Taiwanese Women's Association 
North America Taiwanese Professors' Association 
North American Taiwanese Medical Association 
Taiwanese American Citizens League 
Society of Taiwanese Americans 


Formosan Association for Human Rights 
Formosan Association for Public Affairs 
Center for Taiwan International Relations 
Taiwan Communique 
Taiwanese Collegian 
Intercollegiate Taiwanese American Student Association 
Professor Chen Wen-chen Memorial Foundation 
Dr. Wang Kang-lu Memorial Foundation 

---