Why should “One China” policy be abandoned?
“One China policy” should be abandoned, and the world should recognize Taiwan, instead of Republic of China, as a country.
I. Taiwan as an international orphan
On October 25th, 1971, Republic of China (ROC) “on” Taiwan with ~ 23 million people was kicked out by the United Nations (UN) it co-founded in 1945, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) took over the seat. Since then, ROC on Taiwan has been isolated from international exposure and participation. However, ROC on Taiwan has become one of the wealthiest countries with its GDP ranked 26th[1], PPP ranked 20th[2], and Human Development Index (HDI) ranked 21st.[3] Taiwan is eager to give back and cooperate with different countries and organizations in the ever more connected world, but it continued to be pushed back because of the “One China” policy spell. In reality, not having Taiwan’s participation in the international community brought more damage to the community itself, and particularly on the issue of carbon emission, air navigation safety, global health and epidemic, and international crime.
II. Key issues requiring Taiwan’s participation: damages and benefits
Since Taiwan is not a member State to the UN, it could not participate in any UN-related conference. For example, carbon emission is managed by the UN Framework Convention on Clime Change (UNFCCC), air navigation safety by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), global health and epidemic by World Health Organization (WHO), and international crime by Interpol. These issues spread without boundaries but Taiwan could not be involved with any of it because these organizations are all related to the UN where “One China” policy has been followed with PRC’s growing influence over the organization. In addition, China claimed that Taiwanese’ needs and issues were taken care through the Beijing government is simply unfounded.
· Carbon emission
Taiwan has produces nearly 1% of the world’s total carbon emissions, and ranks 18th worldwide for per capita carbon emissions.[4] The exclusion of Taiwan from the UNFCCC not only runs counter to the UNFCCC’s mission to make its global coverage and data more complete, it also cuts Taiwan out of the information loop and leaves it open to the effects of natural disasters.[5]
· Air navigation safety
Taiwan has East Asia's busiest airspace[6], and should have access to the latest technologies and standards in civil aviation safety. Not having access to timely data diminishes Taiwan’s air navigation capabilities, and it can have a major impact on the air navigation safety in the region. [7]
· Global health and epidemic
Being excluded from WHO meetings inherently limits Taiwan’s ability to deal with future public health emergencies due to a lack of timely information and accessible resources. Meanwhile, Taiwan could not provide timely information to other members in case any epidemic outbreak happens in Taiwan. The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 leading to 60 deaths within a month[8] was a perfect example how lack of transparency and access to timely data killed people.
· International crime
In a world shaped by globalization, an international security network that does not include Taiwan inevitably leads to higher law enforcement costs for all parties concerned. For example, only after Taiwan police had solved a $2.2-million ATM heist perpetrated locally by 22 foreign nationals in July 2016, did they realize that European nations were highly interested in the case when Taiwan’s Criminal Investigation Bureau was invited to discuss it at a special meeting convened by the European Police Office. However, Taiwan police were unable to promptly share information they had uncovered on more suspects in the upper echelons of the crime ring; nor were they able to gain access to intelligence they needed. As crime is no longer subject to geographical constraints, Taiwan’s exclusion from Interpol creates a major loophole in the prevention of international crime, becoming a cause of concern for countries worldwide.[9]
III. The emergence of Taiwan issue
When it became clear that in the early hours of November 9th, 2016 that Donald Trump would become the 45th President of the United States, many people around the world were shocked. While I knew the political landscape would soon become drastically different, I did not expect the nation of Taiwan to become a hot button issue in this brave new world.
On an otherwise ordinary Friday on December 3rd, 2016, President Tsai Ing-Wen of Taiwan spoke to President-elect Donald Trump on the phone to offer her congratulations for his electoral victory. This phone conversation was first reported by the Financial Times[10] and soon after, the Trump’s team confirmed the call. According to them, “During the discussion, both parties noted the close economic, political, and security ties exists between Taiwan and the United States. President-elect Trump also congratulated President Tsai on becoming President of Taiwan earlier this year.” The phone call lasted about 10 minutes.[11]
Under normal circumstances, it is perfectly common for one country’s leader to offer a congratulatory call to the newly-elected leader of a close friend and ally. It happens all the time. Why was the phone call between the President of Taiwan and the President-elect of the United States anything special? Because such calls have not happened since the United States broke off diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan in 1979.
IV. The origin of “one China policy”
To understand the complexity of this issue, it is imperative to look back at history.
When the U.S. moved to recognize the PRC and de-recognize the ROC in 1979, the U.S. stated that the government of the PRC was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity. The U.S. did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter.
This was followed by other pronouncements such as the August 17th, 1982, joint U.S.-China Communique, which affirmed that “the United States had no intention of [actively] pursuing a policy of two Chinas or one China, one Taiwan,” but would instead allow the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to settle the matter themselves.[12]
Until today, the summary of the U.S. version of the “one China policy” is that the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China, but only acknowledges and does not accept the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Therefore, the U.S. can have formal relations with the PRC, while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China policy” has since been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S administration.
V. Post-Trump’s Taiwan call
After news of the phone call broke out, many people criticized Trump for breaking the protocol of more than three decades by having a phone call with the President of Taiwan. News coverage about this spread around the world. All of a sudden, “Taiwan” became a popular term for people to search on Google.
The people of Taiwan were thrilled that our struggle with international recognition and exposure was finally in the international spot light for once. However, many were also concerned that Trump would use Taiwan as bargaining chip when negotiating with China, and ultimately still sell the island out. It was a mixed feeling of surprise, joy, and nervousness because according to an interview between Trump and Fox News not long after the phone call, Trump said, "I fully understand the 'One China' policy, but I don't know why we have to be bound by a 'One China' policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade."[13]
Is Taiwan simply a negotiating tool to Trump now? Does it mean the “One China” policy the U.S. had resisted for so long could instead be affirmed, in exchange for favorable trade deals?
At the same time, Beijing has insisted that would be “no negotiation on the One China policy”[14]
Ironically, even in Taiwan itself, the island’s numerous political parties have different perspectives on what a “One China” policy would entail. Policy differences between the previous (KMT) and current administrations (Democratic Progressive Party; DPP) have included how to best preserve sovereignty in the face of an increasingly assertive CCP. While the KMT viewed “One China, Respective Interpretations”[15] as the best way to ensure ROC sovereignty, the DPP generally has regarded "One China" as an issue to be negotiated, rather than unilaterally conceded or inherited.
The tensions between the ROC and PRC decreased dramatically after the Nationalists regained power in Taiwan in 2008, after a period of DPP rule. For example, the Taiwanese government lifted many bans on Chinese tourists to Taiwan, and regular direct flights between Taiwan and China have taken off. However, further economic cooperation does not decrease the desire of the Taiwanese people to have a voice internationally.
We want to have the right to attend international events and conferences; to represent ourselves and our country; and to have more freedom to act on the international stage without being controlled by China.
All of this remains difficult. On the one hand, China has emphasized that as long as both Taiwan and China agree on the “one China policy” everything is open for negotiation except issues only a “State” can handle. But without agreement on this first point, China will seek to squeeze Taiwan in every way possible.
Allowing Taiwan to have more room to attend international events or conferences—in particular multilateral organizations—presents a challenge, since the idea is in serious contradiction with PRC’s idea of “sovereignty” because PRC considers Taiwan is part of China, People’s Republic of China.
VI. Self-identity
The identity of residents of the island of Taiwan has shifted dramatically in the past 20 years. When responding to the question of identity, respondents are asked which statement they agree with: “I am Chinese”, “I am Taiwanese”, or “I am both Chinese and Taiwanese”. When the survey was conducted the first time in 1992[16], only 17% of respondents in the survey identified as “Taiwanese” versus 25% as only “Chinese”. In 2016, more than 58% identified as “Taiwanese” versus 4% as only “Chinese”, even though more than 90% of Taiwanese are Han Chinese by ethnicity. This includes a large swathe of descendants of former KMT supporters who fled from China to Taiwan in 1949, as well as the Taiwanese who have been on the island for generations.
Although Taiwan’s official name remains ROC, most members of the public use the moniker “Taiwan” to differentiate themselves from China, and avoid confusing foreigners who know little about the China-Taiwan divide. The majority of Taiwanese people see Taiwan as a country—we just happen to have “ROC” because of the historical reason. The ROC government has no intention to return to China proper, and in no way desires the PRC to come here to this island, either.
“Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China” has become a common theme among people in Taiwan. What Taiwanese wants is recognition by other States and full participation in the international community.
VII. Alternatives to “One China” policy
If the adherence to an ambiguous “One China” policy will be subject to a shake-up, what are the alternatives?
(1) Two China
Countries to recognize both the PRC and ROC, similar to recognition of both the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea), or Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) and Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD).
This idea could have worked before, but not when the time that people in Taiwan do not even want to use “Republic of China” anymore.
(2) Enhanced Status Quo — recognize ROC without establishing official diplomatic ties with but managing in a more creative and meaning way
This is a common approach among many major countries today. For example, Japan’s foreign visitor registration data separates Taiwanese and Chinese passport holders. More recently, it changed the name of its de facto embassy from “Interchange Association (Japan), Taipei office” to simply the “Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association” since the beginning of this year.
However, this approach still lets Taiwan more or less be bound by “One China” policy.
(3) One China One Taiwan
Countries to recognizes both PRC and Taiwan without using the name of ROC. This is probably the best approach to escape from “One China” policy spell. According to Germany and many other countries, “the one China policy means recognizing Beijing as China's capital and maintaining only unofficial relations with Taiwan.”[17] This way, Taiwan could well argue that Taipei does not intend to be as China’s capital, and understands Beijing as China’s capital.
However, we believe that Taiwan is a country with its rightful name as Taiwan; therefore, Taiwan should not be bound by “One China” policy because Taiwan is not China.
VIII. Conclusion
“One China” policy should eventually be abandoned while adopting “One China One Taiwan” because Taiwan’s contribution to the international community should not be excluded, and people in Taiwan want to be identified as Taiwanese instead of Chinese. Such a seemingly radical approach will enhance Taiwan’s contribution to the world in many aspects. The world may yet to be ready for this, and China certainly will not settle on this easily. However, people in Taiwan will continue pushing for this agenda while leveraging its soft power to accumulate its international reputation, and thus international recognition.
Sources:
[1] Statistics Times, “List of Countries by Projected GDP”, http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017)
[2] Statistics Times, “World GDP ranking - PPP”, http://statisticstimes.com/economy/world-gdp-ranking-ppp.php (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017)
[3] Focus Taiwan, “Taiwan ranks 21st in world human development index”, http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201409180039.aspx (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017)
[4] Sunday Guardian Live, “Taiwan faces a dilemma in energy policy”, http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/world/7312-taiwan-faces-dilemma-energy-policy (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017)
[5] Kent Wang, The Diploma, “Taiwan and the UN Climate Change Framework”, http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/taiwan-and-the-un-climate-change-framework/ (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017)
[6] Nick Ching, VOA News, “US supports Taiwan’s participation in International Civil Aviation Organization”, http://www.voanews.com/a/us-support-taiwan-international-civil-aviation-organization/3521369.html (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017); “Taiwan is responsible for the airspace known as Taipei Flight Information Region (Taipei FIR), which covers 180,000 square nautical miles and provides services for nearly 1.53 million controlled flights carrying 58 million travelers annually.”
[7] Ibid.
[8] Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Serve Acute Respiratory Syndrome – Taiwan, 2003”, https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5220a1.htm (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017)
[9] Liu Po-liang, The Diplomat, “Interpol is not complete without Taiwan’s participation”, http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/interpol-is-not-complete-without-taiwans-participation/ (last visit: Feb. 1st, 2017)
[10] Demetri Sevastopulo & Geoff Dyer & Tom Mitchell, “China lodges formal protest after Donald Trump’s Taiwan call”, https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d (last visit: Jan. 30th, 2017)
[11] Jordan Fabian & Neetzan Zimmerman, “Trump makes history with phone call to Taiwan leader”, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308559-trump-makes-history-with-phone-call-to-taiwan-leader (last visit: Jan. 30th, 2017)
[12] Reuters, “Text of U.S. China Communique on Taiwan”, http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/18/world/text-of-us-china-communique-on-taiwan.html (last visit: Jan. 30th, 2017)
[13] Reuters, “Trump says U.S. not necessarily bound by “One China” policy”, http://fortune.com/2016/12/11/trump-one-china-policy/ (last visit: Jan. 30th, 2017)
[14] Eugene Scott, CNN, “China: no negotiation on “One China” policy despite Trump remarks”, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/politics/donald-trump-one-china-taiwan/ (last visit: Jan. 30th, 2017)
[15] JM Norton, The Diplomat, “One China, 5 interpretations”, http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/one-china-5-interpretations/ (last visit: Jan. 30th, 2017); “A definition of one China came out after negotiators from the two sides met in Hong Kong in 1992 and reached a non-written agreement that “there is only one China with each side of the Strait defining the term as it sees fit”. This became known as the “1992 Consensus”. It was not very precise for either side. China’s slogan described the end result after negotiations: a single state of China that had two economic systems. China was concerned with the substance of the outcome, not so much the form of the negotiations. It was offering a compromise that went beyond the Hong Kong formula for a “high degree of autonomy”. Taiwan’s response was to promote the idea of two political entities which were
focused on the preconditions and form of the negotiating process. It was concerned more with positioning itself well so it could achieve a higher level of autonomy. Taiwan has been more concerned with form and process than substance and nearly all the rhetoric has resulted in delay.”
[16] Election Study Center, N.C.C.U., “Important political attitude trend distribution”, http://esc.nccu.edu.tw/course/news.php?Sn=167 (last visit: Jan. 31st, 2017)
[17] The big story, “Merkel says Germany will stick to ‘One-China’ policy”, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/668f55f6ba274e0c92a844cb9bf7b659/merkel-says-germany-will-stick-one-china-policy (last visit: Jan. 31st, 2017)
