TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
OR UNIFICATION?

(Updated )

he most pressing Asian foreign policy issue currently faced by the U.S. is the Taiwan question. The email we receive in reaction to our articles relating to this issue suggests that it's an emotional one for many of our readers. Perhaps one reason for the emotion is the fact that the issue isn't amenable to an easy or simple solution.
     The first historical mention of Taiwan appears to have been when Portugese traders found it to be a resting place on their journey to Japan and named it Isla Formosa. Beijing's claim to Taiwan dates back to the 16th century when a Chinese general fought off the Portugese to claim the island for the emperor. In 1895 the expansion-minded Japanese annexed it after defeating China in a war on the Corean peninsula. China briefly reestablished sovereignty over Taiwan following Japan's defeat in August of 1945.
     At the time the official government of China, as recognized by most nations of the world, was under the control of the Kuomingtang headed by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. He was engaged in a desperate war against Mao Tse-tung's peasant army. Despite billions of dollars of aid by the U.S. based mainly on intensely partisan reporting by Henry Luce's Time/Life empire, the spectacularly corrupt Chiang lost that war and fled to Taiwan with 2.5 million followers.
     He established the present government of Taiwan on December 7, 1949 and proclaimed it the sole legitimate government of all China. Mao made the same claim. The claims competed until 1971 when it became clear to most of the world that Mao's was more persuasive. Taiwan was kicked out of the UN. The Beijing government took its place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a seat given in recognition of China's role in fighting Japan in World War II.
     Mired in its own misguided war in Vietnam, and intensely fearful of anything red, the U.S. was one of the last nations to recognize the legitimacy of Mao's government. In 1972 Richard Nixon made his historic journey to Beijing. In 1976 the U.S. took the next step by recognizing the People's Republic as China's sole legitimate government. It began pursuing the "One China, One Taiwan" policy under which official diplomatic contacts were exclusively with Beijing but continued to sell billions of dollars a year of fighter jets, helicopters, tanks and missiles to Taiwan to help defend against a possible Chinese effort to refunify by force.
     In 1997 President Clinton declared a "strategic partnership" with Beijing over intense Republican objections. It was an astute recognition of the fact that China's 1.2 billion people must be accorded a central place in U.S. foreign policy. But the historic, moral and economic ties that bind the U.S. to Taiwan's 23 million people stand squarely in the way of cutting off arms sales and renouncing the pact under which the U.S. obliged itself to come to Taiwan's defense in the event of attack by China. That U.S. pledge and continuing arms sales continue to inflame Beijing to periodic bursts of violent anti-U.S. rhetoric.
     Taiwan has been a domocracy since 1989 when it legalized opposition parties. It held its first democratic presidential elections in 1990. Lee Teng-hui handily won to keep the presidency which he had originally gained in 1988. Lee won again in 1996. Since 1997 he began efforts to warm up relations with Beijing by agreeing to enter into negotiations under a "One-China" framework with an eye toward eventual reunification. Beijing's leaders continued their highly successful campaign of pressuring diplomatic partners into severing ties with Taiwan. China even raised hell when Lee made a semi-surreptitious trip to New York in 1997. Since then China has scared neighborning nations like the Philippines into not allowing Lee to enter. As of 1999 Taiwan's diplomatic allies number about 18 out of about 220 nations on earth. All are tiny, impoverished Central American, African and Pacific Island nations that appreciate Taiwan's generous aid packages. Pago Pago is considered a major ally.
     Feisty Lee Teng-hui launched his own guerilla offensive in July, 1999 by declaring over German radio that Taiwan was in fact a separate state and would negotiate with Beijing on an equal footing. That sent Beijing into a tizzy. It fired off bombastic threats to take Taiwan by force and to annhilate the U.S. Navy if it intervenes. On October 18 during his British visit Chinese President Jiang Zemin assumed a softer, more relaxed tone in telling a London newspaper that China would be peacefully reunited with Taiwan under a one-nation two-systems formula by the middle of the next century. One might have expected Lee to have been relieved by that statement. Instead, he brushed it aside as "a hoax". China should try instead to set a timetable for its democratization as that was the only way to ensure reunification, sneered Lee's Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi. Most polls show that a clear majority of Taiwanese prefer to maintain the status quo indefinitely rather than moving toward unification.
     Beijing's reunification mandate appears based on the idea that in winning the mainland, the Chinese people had rejected the "criminal" Kuomingtang and its right to rule any part of China. It also sees Taiwan as a galling symbol of the division wrought and preserved by western imperialists -- namely, the U.S. -- seeking to enjoy global hegemony at the expense of Chinese dignity.
     Meanwhile the U.S. remains on the hook to defend Taiwan and sell it arms though doing so keeps its relations with a quarter of humanity rocky and on edge. Under its current policy the U.S. is the asbestos firewall that keeps friction between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait from igniting into war.
     Should the U.S. continue alienating Beijing to help Taiwan protect its independence or improve relations with China by pressuring Taiwan to reunite?
Unfication with China is not in the bag and not a sure thing.

China becoming the dominant superpower in the world is not in the bag, not even sure if that will every occur.

There are still many Taiwanese who have strong Taiwanese identity.
Writing From Japan    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 05:38:35 (PDT)


huu76:

you wrote:

>About negative Asian sentiments in the event of war. I think the only people who need to worry are Asian men., but that's for another forum(s).

im sorry, i dont follow... the women do not need to worry... why?

shouldnt they be worried about becoming sex slaves or comfort women :)
ABC in NYC    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 04:02:28 (PDT)
huu76:

"About negative Asian sentiments in the event of war. I think the only people who need to worry are Asian men., but that's for another forum(s). Geoff and Political O. know what I mean."

Yea huu76, I know exactly what you mean and that's what troubles me, too. Asian women would not be exempt because ignorant stone cold racist, as well as simply ignorant people don't have the sense to differentiate between foreign terrorists and fellow Americans who happen to be of Asian descent.
Geoff DB GeoffDB02@aol.com    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 01:41:34 (PDT)
AC Dropout:

You don't understand ? Let me try to explain...

You have contempt for the US because of the "white trash" here and the fact that the economy is supposedly going to sink into oblivion. You praise and love the PRC because they are the next superpower. You say Taiwan should be part of the PRC. Those, my friend, are your positions. Yet when it comes down to it, you hold two passports, but none of which is a PRC one. You hold an American and a Taiwanese passport, despite your reverence for all things PRC. See the disconnnet? Do you understand the concept of hypocrisy?

The point isn't that you hold Taiwanese and American passports - that's not the disconnect. The disconnect (other than your failure to understand), is that a PRC lover should not be holding EITHER a Taiwanese or American passport. But you hold both. What irony.

Uh...you addressed me with an honorific, and then you tell me than "only an illiterate person would accept that as a compliment"? Uh...what do you think an honorific is? Perhaps your Mandarin skills are not as strong as you believe, if you don't know when to use an honorific.

And finally, you say that these boards are about CREDIBILITY and sharing information on China-Taiwan. Agreed. However, when someone put false information - for example, your claim that one of Taiwan's branches of government functions as a censor, or that millions of Americans are immigrating to China (that is by far the best one), or that the PRC military can take the US, that information must be verified and questioned. That is precisely what "credibility" is about. Therefore, you should really think before you speak. Don't say that the boards are about credibility, but turn around and say that information here should not be questioned or verified.

And FYI, don't construct an argument so weakly as to let others have a easy shot at taking it down. That's not a sign of critical thinking.
A/HL Grad    Monday, July 29, 2002 at 17:31:18 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS