English Open Forum |
The pitfalls of US One China Policy
Author's note:
In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute on June 2, Majority Leader Tom DeLay made a frontal assault on the U.S. One China Policy. This was quite an event since DeLay directly criticized President Bush's Taiwan policy. Segments of DeLay's speech were broadcast nationwide by C-SPAN on June 2 and June 3. My essay is a follow-up on the DeLay speech and also a rebuttal to the U.S. State Department, whose spokesman Reeker recently expressed objection to Taiwan holding a referendum on the independence-unification issue.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) insists on the One China Principle as the foundation of its policy towards Taiwan. The Principle is a syllogism which runs as follows: There is only one China. The PRC is the sole, legitimate government of all China, of which Taiwan is a part. Therefore, Taiwan is subject to the sovereignty of the PRC, under the authority of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The U.S. government, on the other hand, says it abides by the One China Policy, often without explaining what is meant by the phrase. There are at least three substantive differences between the positions of Washington and Beijing.
First, China claims sovereignty over Taiwan, based on flimsy legal and historical grounds. The U.S. merely acknowledges (i.e., takes note of ) the fact that the "Chinese" on both sides of the Taiwan strait claim Taiwan is part of China. The U.S. has never recognized (i.e., accepted) the PRC's sovereignty claim. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Jim Kelly has reiterated this point, citing President Reagan's Six Assurances. Majority Leader Tom DeLay also emphasized this fact in his June 2 speech at the American Enterprise Institute and added that U.S. "recognition of Beijing's territorial claims over Taiwan ... never will exist.".
Second, as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the U.S. considers "any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means ... a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." The three joint communiques are also predicated on peaceful settlement. China, however, has reneged on this agreement, having won U.S. recognition of the PRC and other concessions. China insists on its "right" to use force against Taiwan, in order to gratify its expansionist ambitions.
Finally, the U.S. maintains that any determination of the future status of Taiwan must have the assent of the people of Taiwan. China's position is that Taiwan's status should be determined by the 1.3 billion Chinese living under the CCP's control. The 23 million Taiwanese do not have a say on the choice between freedom and servitude.
Chinese officials and Beijing's diplomats have cleverly tried to portray U.S. One China Policy as one and the same as Beijing's One China Principle. By repeating the One China Policy mantra without any elaboration, the U.S. government and the media have misled the public and the international community, causing an erroneous perception that America has recognized China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and unwittingly served as Beijing's propaganda mouthpiece. Taiwan's inability to shed the archaic Republic of China constitutional framework also makes it more difficult for the island nation to assert its separate sovereignty. The result is dire damage to Taiwan's international standing and the nation's growing isolation in the global community.
If Taiwan were to fall into PRC hands, there will be adverse consequences for U.S. strategic, political and economic interests in the whole Asian region. With China's armed forces controlling the vital sea lanes and air space around Taiwan, Japan's security will be mortally threatened. The damage to America's credibility as a guarantor of peace in East Asia may be so severe that Japan will face the unpalatable choice of either going nuclear or becoming a protectorate of the PRC. In time, the U.S. could well be forced to withdraw in toto from the Western Pacific.
As Congressman Tom DeLay has stated, the One China Policy is merely the means to America's primary objective in Asia, which is "the preservation of democracy and the expansion of freedom." When the Shanghai communique was issued in 1972, Taiwan was under the White Terror rule of Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang. The "Chinese" in Taiwan at that time referred to the authoritarian KMT regime since the Taiwanese people were forbidden to express their views. Since the late 1980's, the citizens of Taiwan have transformed the island nation into a thriving democracy, after decades of struggle during which tens of thousands of people lost their lives or years of their youth languishing in prison. The Taiwanese have earned the right to decide their own future without any outside pressure.
The basic premise of the One China Policy that both the Taiwanese and Chinese agree that Taiwan is part of China is false. Opinion surveys show that some 80% of the Taiwanese reject CCP rule and prefer Taiwan's de facto status as an independent democracy.
Regarding the U.S. position on Taiwan independence, the following comments of Senator Jesse Helms, former Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, are relevant:
"The United States should neither support nor oppose independence for Taiwan. While a declaration of independence by Taiwan would be suicidal and must not be encouraged, Taiwan is, after all, a democracy; as a revolutionary nation ourselves, the U.S. has little moral authority to foreclose that option to the 23 million free people who live in Taiwan."
The TRA affirms "the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan" as objectives of the United States (Section 2(c)). The right of self determination is a basic human right which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a signatory to the Covenant and a fellow democracy, it would be inappropriate for the United States to oppose the Taiwanese people's right to freely determine Taiwan's future status, through a referendum or otherwise.
After the September 11 attacks on America, there has been a marked warming in U.S.-China relations. However, the U.S. must take care such improvement in relations is not based on excessive deference to PRC sensitivity on the Taiwan issue. After all, China's contribution to the global war on terror is minor. China's efforts in resolving the North Korean nuclear standoff serve its own self-interest. There is no need for the U.S. to make superfluous concessions to Beijing in return.
The One China Policy no longer serves America's interest in peace and stability of East Asia. By acquiescing in China's chauvinism, this Policy invites Chinese military aggression against democratic Taiwan and an eventual U.S.-China military conflict. It is high time the One China Policy be discarded in favor of a proactive strategy of maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, at least until such time the People's Republic gives up its policy of military aggrandizement and it ceases to threaten its neighbors. A policy of appeasing China could well lead to deadly dangers to the U.S. homeland. As the late Congressman Gerald Solomon has declared: Taiwan's security is ultimately America's security as well.
台灣獨立建國聯盟網站／WUFI Web-site
WUFI Open-Forum is open to anyone who wishes to express his/her viewpoints,
Li Thian-hok 2003/07/15
World United Formosans for Independence
comments, or suggestions; howver, personal matters, persoanl attacks and
commercial ads will not be posted. Please send your emails to:
wufidata@wufi.org.tw