|
|
|
|
SPEAKING
FREELY
Conflicting concepts of Taiwan's
status quo
By Ted Galen
Carpenter
Speaking Freely is an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to
have their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing.
China reacted with
anger and dismay when the US State Department
criticized the Anti-Secession Law recently passed
by the National People's Congress. Chinese
officials protested that, contrary to US
complaints, the new law did not change the status
quo regarding Taiwan. Indeed, China insisted that
the legislation reinforced the status quo.
The Chinese are probably sincere. Yet that
sincerity underscores a larger - and potentially
very dangerous - problem regarding the Taiwan
issue. Beijing, Taipei and Washington all insist
that they oppose any unilateral action that alters
the status quo, but the three capitals interpret
the status quo in vastly different ways. That
creates considerable potential for
misunderstanding and mutual recrimination - or
worse.
The US definition
When US
officials speak of the status quo, they mean a
willingness by all parties to tolerate
indefinitely Taiwan's ambiguous political status.
In other words, the island should continue to
enjoy its de facto independence (but not
internationally recognized legal independence)
until Taipei and Beijing can agree on a peaceful
resolution of the dispute.
That rationale
enables Washington to acknowledge Beijing's
position that there is only one China and that
Taiwan is part of China while continuing to sell
arms to Taiwan and maintain an implicit commitment
to defend the island against a Chinese military
assault. Taiwan's attempts to push the envelope
regarding independence are considered disruptive
and undesirable, but so too is any attempt by
China to compel reunification. That is why the
United States has explicitly admonished both
capitals in the past year about their behavior.
The Chinese definition
The
People's Republic of China (PRC) has a radically
different definition of the status quo. As one
Chinese official put it: "The status quo of the
cross-strait relations is that both sides of the
[Taiwan] Strait belong to one and the same China."
He added that it is "a status quo not defined by
other countries such as the United States, nor by
the Taiwan leaders".
To Beijing, the
status quo is a synonym for a one-China policy and
Taiwan's eventual reunification with the mainland.
Anything that challenges the concept of one China
is, therefore, an unacceptable attempt to alter
the status quo. Thus, from the perspective of
Chinese leaders, the Anti-Secession Law is not
disruptive; it merely re-emphasizes the only
acceptable political outcome: reunification.
Conversely, even the mildest actions by Taiwan to
gain international recognition for the Republic of
China (ROC, the official name of the Taiwanese
government) are a threat to the status quo and
must be resisted at all costs.
The
Taiwanese definition
Taiwan's concept of
the status quo is exactly the opposite of the
PRC's. Taiwanese officials routinely argue that
the status quo means Taiwan's independence. They
point out that the Republic of China has been in
existence since 1912, and that at least some
countries in the world (at present, fewer than 30,
mostly small nations) still recognize the ROC as
an independent state.
As supporting
evidence for the proposition that the status quo
means an independent Taiwan, one official stressed
that since 1996, Taiwan has held fully democratic
elections "within specified boundaries by
specified citizens for a government exercising
exclusive control over a territory".
Reunification with China, according to
Taipei, is only one possible outcome among many to
be negotiated by the governments of two
independent and equal states. From Taiwan's
perspective, China's new Anti-Secession Law is an
aggressive and threatening attempt by Beijing to
alter the status quo, while Taiwanese efforts to
secure international recognition by joining the
United Nations and other international
organizations are consistent with the status quo.
Unfortunately, officials in Beijing,
Taipei and Washington do not seem to grasp that
they have very different concepts in mind when
they all speak of preserving the status quo.
Serious diplomatic quarrels and even armed
conflicts have begun over less significant
misunderstandings. That danger is becoming acute
with regard to the Taiwan issue.
Ted
Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense
and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute
in Washington, DC, is the author or editor of 17
books on international affairs. His next book,
America's Coming War With China: A Collision
Course over Taiwan, is forthcoming from
Palgrave/Macmillan this year. The Cato Institute
is a non-profit public-policy research foundation
emphasizing the principles of limited government,
individual liberty, free markets and peace.
(Copyright 2005 Ted Galen Carpenter.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click here
if you are interested in contributing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
