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?
AC,

Those are some good points. But we have to compare China from 1950's onwards to country that was in similiar boat. Say Singapore or South Korea or even Taiwan. What about South American countries? You think China was victim numero uno in world's history but that really isn't true at all. Even strife-ridden Israel is richer. And if that doesn't convince you, what aobut eastern europe?

of course, chinese progress was hampered by exploitation by the west in the early century. But that exploitation was possible by poor chinese governance by the Qing, who refused to modernize, as oppose to Meiji in Japan. Who incidentally would go on to invade China using Western weapons.

But AC, you also ignore the fact that every communist country in the history of mankind had to face economic disaster. This includes countries that weren't "exploited" by the West including Austria.

Whereas it is completely true that China was seriously damaged by Western exploitation, please note that since CCP's rise to power, Hong Kong is one of the richest places on earth while Shanghai, until capitalistic reforms, lagged far far far behind.

But this being Taiwan forum, I just want to say, why can't the mainland chinese government give some "sunshine" on Taiwan instead of giving such harsh rhetoric? I mean, I think it's unfair how you criticize Bush and S. korean government for telling North Korea to let it's citizens have access to outside communication, while defending mainland China's military ambition on Taiwan. I mean, don't you think it would be much more fruitful if China started to relax on Taiwan? Official S. Korean policy is currently a peaceful coexistence of the 2 governments. That's the offical line. But mainland China is too harsh on it's own(I hope i'm not offending any Taiwanese here) people.
ka    Thursday, August 01, 2002 at 10:05:46 (PDT)


BE Verins presents the typical white man's view of how they like their Orientals. Non-threatening (i.e. Taiwan)to white interests (i.e. USA). Too small and too dependent on the US economy and military to protect it. Guess which one is the bi(t)ch in that relationship.

BE Verins said, "China's leaders just want a militarily strategic outpost on an island - that's the long and the short of why they clamour so badly for Taiwan."
Me say... remember Hainan? They've already got an island you red-faced devil.

White Amerikkka does not belong in East Asia.
yellowperil whitey@ipissonyou.com    Thursday, August 01, 2002 at 08:11:13 (PDT)
B.E. Verins, you are a fool. The U.S. government officially recognizes the PRC, and that there is only One China, which Taiwan is a part of. Every single country in the world recognizes this, including the U.N., notwithstanding a couple of islands in the Pacific.
Realist    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 20:01:21 (PDT)
AC Dropout:

Most American country clubs are still very "white", so I doubt you fit in as well as you think. You have a habit of pretending to be something you are not.

For someone with supposedly a busy schedule, you sure spend a lot of time on these boards. Somehow, I doubt you are running the multinational conglomerate that you claim to be. More like a couple of sweatshops in Chinatown is the extent of your PRC business.

Spinning a convoluted web to put forth a simple idea is not a sign of scholarship; more like "nouveau riche" trying to act sophisticated. Effective communication is based on expressing ideas clearly and succintly; that's why even in Chinese, the proverbs are no more than 4 words/characters but contain rich meanings.

But to sum up your point - you are be a dissenter within American rank. True, but there is dissention and there is lack of loyalty. Americans who are either on the left or right may or may not agree, but they still hold true to their national identity. Same goes for PRC nationals.

"But I have already put my money where my mouth is."

That's a laugh. Is that why you still cling on to your American passport and Taiwan passport instead of the PRC one? And FYI, we were talking about PRC passports, not "Chinese" ones. Therefore, you point about the Taiwanese passport containing the world "China" is both irrelevant and a sign of non-critical thinking.

By all accounts, you claim to be Chinese, support the PRC in its "glory", and loves the entire country, from peasant to Jiang Zhemin. Yet, you clearly hold and use non-PRC passports. A PRC national looks at you and says, "what a twinkie", "what a banana". They are not impressed because you lacked the moral courage to vote with your feet.

As for Taiwan's "white terror"...uh...perhaps you should read some history yourself. Did it not occur to you that the "white terror" regime happened during the KMT era. We were talking about Taiwan's government practicing censorship TODAY. White terror ended with the Chiang's.

There are not clearly "millions" of American expats moving to the PRC. Of course it is more than one, but even in a cosmopolitan city like Hong Kong, there are less than 50K American expats (check AmCham). Multiple that by 10 to account for the size of the PRC (and that's a stretch because there are not 10 cosmo cities like HK in the PRC), and you get maybe 500k. Not the "millions" you claim with thinking.

Strategic threat means long term, not now. We also called IRAQ, IRAN, and NK a threat, and clearly none of them can take the US.

I doubt the PRC will take over the US, but in case it does, I will not be surprised if you would be the first one to change passports again. You are like a typical Chinese, with no sense of national pride and born and bred to be a follower/peasant. The PRC will never be a superpower, precisely because most Chinese are like you...they rush to obtain the citizenship of other countries.
A/HL Grad    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 17:21:10 (PDT)
AC-

interesting "proof," though, not sure if predicate logic is the way to deal with this sort of topic.

The problem, you see, is that all the central points about which this pivots you rest on axioms and a postulate. Axioms are, as you no doubt know, basically central points you take a priori. There is no discussion as to whether they are true or false; they simply are true, and we proceed from there.

If you want to base your argument on axioms, why not eliminate the whole mess and just say:

Axiom 1: it is not a paradox....

Much cleaner that way.

Also, as an aside, in general, you cannot rely on theorems (i.e. Theorum (sic) 1.0 - Pro-PRC (I) elements in the set of USA (P) are still contained within the set of USA.) The theorem seems almost tautologically true, but as a matter of course, it is a good practice to try to prove it.
Ai Ya    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 14:31:52 (PDT)
hey guys. China has concluded a deal with russians to buy 40 SU 30 MKKs for 1.8 billion bucks. This will increase the power of the chinese PLAAF. Also they are equipped with the R-77 AAM the fire and forget russian version. Comparable to the AIM-120 of the US. The CCTV of the chinese media has a show called "walk into taiwan" its about taiwan culture, etc etc. Well that exactly what we plan to do. lol. WALK INTO TAIWAN.
SOG    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 13:33:58 (PDT)
B.E.Verins,

Lock horns? And if the USA loses?
I'm sorry but simplicity of your views is beyond me.
AC Dropout    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 12:55:32 (PDT)
Asian Sting,

ROC Citizenship is not predicated on serving the draft. Anyways there are discussions of lifting mandatory service. Since tension have been easing across the strait lately.
AC Dropout    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 12:50:49 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS