The text of Imagine if someone had suggested in 1776 that the future of the American colonies should be " ...acceptable to people on both sides of the Atlantic."
The document's reminder that US policy "is inhibiting creative thinking about Taiwan's future, and gives a Communist China a say in decision-making on a democratic Taiwan's future that should be made solely by the Taiwanese people themselves." The State Department has always struck me as relatively pro-China -- I suspect that the reason the leadership post at the US representative office in Taipei was recently downgraded was because too many of the people who filled it developed too much sympathy for Taiwan. But it seems that democracy on Taiwan, viewed in the right light, is an opportunity to be grasped, not an annoyance to be eliminated by annexing it to China.
FORMOSAN ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS (FAPA)
552 7TH STREET S.E. - WASHINGTON DC 20003
TEL: (202) 547-3686 - FAX: (202) 543-7891
-- For immediate release --
Washington DC, January 31st, 2006
Washington DC, January 31st, 2006
Taiwanese-Americans support President Chen Shui-bian's call for abolishment of "Unification Council"
On Sunday, January 29th, 2006, Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian announced that he was considering scrapping the "Unification guidelines" and "National Unification Council", two relics from the time Taiwan was ruled by the Chinese Kuomintang Party, which until the present day still advocates unification with China. President Chen emphasized that Taiwan is now a democracy and that the future of the island should be decided by the Taiwanese themselves. He also said he would like to see Taiwan join the United Nations under the name "Taiwan."
As Taiwanese-Americans, we wholeheartedly support President Chen's proposals: it is a long-overdue step which would move Taiwan forward on the road towards being a normal country, and towards acceptance in the international community as a full and equal member.
We are thus surprised at the State Department's pronouncement on January 30th, in which it reiterated its worn-out "One China" policy. That policy was devised more than 30 years ago in response to a situation in which two repressive regimes -- the Chinese Nationalists and Communists -- both claimed sovereignty as government of China.
With Taiwan's transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the situation has changed drastically: there is now a free and democratic Taiwan, which is represented by a democratically-elected government, striving for normalization of its relations with the international community.
By insisting on its anachronistic "One China" Policy, and by stating that the US "does not support Taiwan independence" and that a resolution needs to be found that is " ...acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait", the State Department is inhibiting creative thinking about Taiwan's future, and gives a Communist China a say in decision-making on a democratic Taiwan's future that should be made solely by the Taiwanese people themselves. Imagine if someone had suggested in 1776 that the future of the American colonies should be " ...acceptable to people on both sides of the Atlantic."
In conclusion, we thus urge the United States government to help safeguard the safety and security of Taiwan, and to gradually work towards normalization of relations with the democratically-elected government on the island.
In the UN context we should work towards full membership of Taiwan on the basis of the right to self-determination as contained in the UN Charter, while we should also urge the People﹊s Republic of China to enter into a dialogue with Taiwan in order to arrive at a peaceful resolution of the decades-old conflict and strive for mutual recognition.
[FAPA] [Taiwan] [US] [China] [US Foreign Policy] [Taiwan Independence]
Nice try FAPA - yr hearts are in a good place. Granted, US foreign policy positions carry a lot of weight, but is the US alone in having a "one China" policy? Would a US shift in that policy necessarily bring about a change in the one china policies of the - how many now? - countries that have one, for a variety of reasons (hating Taiwan democracy is not likely to be one of them - try national interest).
ReplyDeleteNice quote, but its largely meaningless.
ReplyDelete"Imagine if someone had suggested in 1776 that the future of the American colonies should be " ...acceptable to people on both sides of the Atlantic."
Well, lets see, let frame the quote like this.
"Imagine if someone had suggested in 1861 that the future of the United States of America should be " ...acceptable to people in both the Union and the Confederacy."
Makes a mockery of your quote doesn't it?
"Imagine if someone had suggested in 1861 that the future of the United States of America should be " ...acceptable to people in both the Union and the Confederacy."
ReplyDeleteAs it actually turned out to be.
And how did that occur Michael?
ReplyDeleteThrough peaceful negoitiations agreed to by both the Confederacy and the Union?
except in this case, Rhode Island wants it separate identity accepted...and why not I say?
ReplyDelete