送給沈建德的一篇文章
Taiwan does not equal ROC
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/01/15/2003...
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.
ROGER C.S. LIN
Taipei