Commentary on the One China Policy

Defining the One China Policy

Response to TAIPEI TIMES article

In "One China policy: Back to basics" (page 8, Nov. 18, 2007) Gerrit van der Wees criticizes the US government's stance on the One China issue, claiming that even top ranking US diplomats cannot define this Policy precisely.

However, this policy is fully capable of definition, if one examines the historical and legal record.

First, it must be noted that, as clarified in pronouncements of the US government in early Sept. 2007, the One China Policy does not include the concept that "Taiwan is a part of China." In reading Mr. van der Wees' many commentaries on the internet, my associates and I have unfortunately been unable to determine if he understands this essential fact, or what his views are on the claim of some persons that "China is a divided nation."

Mr. van der Wees urges everyone to consider this entire matter from the viewpoint of the 1960's, stating that: "At that time, there were two governments claiming to be the real government of China: the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) authorities in Taipei, who had come over from China after its 1949 defeat, and Mao Zedong's Chinese Communist Party government (CCP), which had won the Civil War in 1949."

However, such rhetoric easily gives readers the impression that China had become a "divided nation" by late 1949. Indeed, this type of "analysis" often appears in the international press.

In order to avoid this confusion, it is truly necessary to go "back to basics," which at the minimum would start with late October 1945. When the Japanese surrendered on Oct. 25, 1945, none of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC. Under international law, that date only marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan.

Then in December 1949, the ROC fled to occupied Taiwan to become a government in exile. Viewed in this way, the "One China Policy" makes perfect sense. In other words, the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. At the same time, and as recently clarified by the US government, there are no international legal documents which can prove that the sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC (much less the PRC). Significantly, then, it is incorrect to use the term "Taiwan" as a substitute for "ROC."

Mr. van der Wees falls into this trap when he claims that: " 'Taiwan' has changed from being ruled by an authoritarian regime claiming sovereignty over China, to a free and democratic nation, ruled by a democratic government elected by the people on the island."

Additionally, he makes the mistake of taking former President Lee's remarks (to the effect that the ROC government in Taiwan no longer claims sovereignty over the mainland areas) at face value. In fact, these remarks (occasionally repeated by President Chen) have no legal weight whatsoever, and are not even accepted as valid by the courts in Taiwan. This is because, at the most basic level, the ROC Constitution used in Taiwan has not been changed, and under that constitution, the mainland is a part of national territory, and people from the mainland areas are not considered "foreigners."

Mr. van der Wees and his associates at FAPA stress that Taiwan must achieve "change from within," however he misses the point that by acquiescing to the "legitimacy" of the ROC government structure, the Taiwanese are being handed to the PRC on a silver platter. This is because the world community recognizes the PRC as the successor government to the ROC.

Hence, FAPA's continued tirades against the "One China Policy," which fail to analyze the true history of Taiwan beginning in 1945 or to recognize the illegitimacy of the ROC as a "government for Taiwan" after the coming into force of the post-war peace treaties, are not helping the Taiwanese people achieve an independent identity in the world community.

If he wants to find something to criticize about US policy, a good starting point would be the topic of ROC passports. There are no international legal documents which can prove that the sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC, and indeed recent US Executive Branch announcements have clarified that neither Taiwan nor the ROC are states in the international community. Hence, the US State Department's acceptance of ROC passports as "valid travel documents" (under INA definitions) for entry into the United States is a policy in need of urgent review and adjustment.

by Tsai Chung-ji, with editing by Roger C. S. Lin

Taiwan does not equal ROC

TAIPEI TIMES, Jan. 15, 2009, page 8

Activist groups in the US are again pressing Congress to pass a resolution to "cancel" the "one China" policy and make other changes in the executive branch's attitude toward Taiwan. The Taipei Times always gives such efforts front-page coverage, causing readers to think that the underlying rationale finds full support in the newspaper's established editorial policy. In the interest of press freedom, I wonder if it would be possible to present a different point of view?

The "one China" policy of the US says that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is the sole legitimate government of China. That is all that it says. Why any Taiwanese activist groups make the "cancellation" of such a policy the centerpiece of their lobbying efforts in Washington is therefore baffling. Of course, if one maintains that this policy includes the premise that "Taiwan is part of China," that would be something worth arguing about. However, the CRS Report for Congress of July 9, 2007, titled China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy, makes clear that the policy includes no such premise and the US government has never recognized PRC sovereignty over Taiwan.

The Rogers v. Sheng case (DC Circuit, 1960), made clear that the US government has never recognized Republic of China (ROC) sovereignty over Taiwan either. The ruling in that case is fully supported by the Taiwan Relations Act, which stopped recognizing the ROC terminology in dealing with Taiwanese affairs, as well as current US Department of State guidelines for the 21st century.

The "one China" policy does not impede Taiwan's quest for international standing. But solutions to Taiwan's current "identity problem" can only be effectively formulated when the green camp wakes up to the legal reality that "Taiwan does not equal the ROC."

As State Department documents from the 1950s make abundantly clear, the ROC is a Chinese government-in-exile currently residing on Taiwanese soil.

In summary, it would make much more sense for US-based Taiwanese activist groups to support the "one China" policy and then to fully re-explain to members of Congress, research organizations, the media and so on what this policy actually involves.

by Roger C. S. Lin