By 1971, a new stage in the progression of US-China relations began with
Kissinger's private visit to Beijing followed by Nixon's conference with Mao
and Chou En-lai and the promulgation of the Shanghai communiqué,
the first US commitment to the One China Principle. Since then, successive presidents
twice reconfirmed this principle in three communiqués.
Parenthetically we proudly inject the fact that at that time the writer was an
economic advisor to the Chinese-American head of the Nationality's Commission
of the Republican National Committee with whom the Live and Let Live documents
had been shared and presented to the State Department. No doubt, Nixon and Kissinger
had knowledge of the sentiments expressed in the Live and Let Live movement.
However, the USA raised new questions, which established an aura of ambiguity in the wordings of the key statements and their essential contents. In a study by the Congressional Research Service, part of Library of Congress, prepared for Congress, in 2001, they stated:
"There are several complicating issues about the language in the statements. First, China' in the 'one China' principle was not defined in the three joint communiqués. In the Normalization Communiqué, the United States recognized the PRC government as the sole legal government of China, but the PRC has never ruled Taiwan and other islands under the control of the ROC government.
"However, the US statement of December 1978 on normalization state the expectation that the Taiwan question 'will be settled' peacefully by the Chinese themselves. The TRA also stipulated the US expectation that the future of Taiwan 'will be determined' by peaceful means. President Reagan's 1982 statement on arms sales to Taiwan declared that "the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, to resolve' Moreover, 'settlement' or 'resolution' - not stated as 'unification - of the Taiwan question is left open to be determined by both sides.
"The issues of the PRC's possible use of force, US arms sales to Taiwan, and possible US defense of Taiwan have remained contentious. Washington has consistently stated its strong interest that there will be a peaceful settlement, but the PRC has not renounced its claimed sovereign right to use force if necessary. Washington has not promised to end arms sales to Taiwan, although the Mutual Dense Treaty of 1954 was terminated in 1980."
From 1978 when China launched its modernization and market re-orientation and 1992,
when the Soviet Union fell apart China had an open window for economic development
and historically in the most rapid succession of annual growth, established
the base for modern industrial and technological development in its Eastern provinces.
However, cross-channel investment did not begin until this modernization program
was well under way and booming in the 1990's. The Kuomintang authorities in Taiwan
were pressured against investment and trade. That, however, changed dramatically
in the latter period. At the same time, the USA supported the development of the
military in Taiwan with escalating demands on the part of Taiwanese to purchase
hardware for offense as well as defense.
In 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act in the Congress required the United States to
provide defense articles and services to Taiwan and to consider, "with grave concern,"
any non-peaceful means to determine Taiwan's future. However, since the late 1990s,
members of Congress have been in a new debate over whether "ambiguity" in US
statements about the US military role continues to serve US interests in a peaceful
outcome. In fact, the question of "ambiguity" and other issues were debated in the
106th Congress in 1999 following a projection from the Heritage Foundation for a
"New American Century" and the defense of Taiwan by 23 conservatives including
Richard Armitage and Paul Wolfowitz. This is a clarion call for the US
use of force and a provocation to China. It should be noted that the claim of
"ambiguities" tends to be a fig leaf for aggressive determination of the outcome
of the internal conflict in China.
We quote the full document of the right wing:
August 20, 1999
"The People's Republic of China continues to threaten military action against the democratically-elected government of Taiwan. It has therefore become essential that the United States make every effort to deter any form of Chinese intimidation of the Republic of China on Taiwan and declare unambiguously that it will come to Taiwan's defense in the event of an attack or a blockade against Taiwan, including against the offshore islands of Matsu and Kinmen."
"The United States should also make clear that while it is prepared to accept any resolution regarding Taiwan's future status to which both sides voluntarily agree, the future of Taiwan must reflect the will of the people of Taiwan as expressed through their duly elected government. If the people of Taiwan do not want to be united with the mainland until China becomes a democracy, the United States has a moral obligation and strategic imperative to honor that determination."
"Efforts by the Clinton Administration to pressure Taipei to cede its sovereignty and to adopt Beijing's understanding of "One China" are dangerous and directly at odds with American strategic interests, past U.S. policy, and American democratic ideals. Failure to stand by Taiwan and live up to the spirit and letter of the Taiwan Relations Act in the present crisis can only exacerbate tensions and may well lead to serious miscalculation by Beijing."
"The time for strategic and moral "ambiguity" with regard to Taiwan has passed. We urge the administration and leaders in Congress to make a clear statement of America's commitment to the people of Taiwan. Such a commitment is consonant with our nation's interests and ideals, and will help ensure peace in East Asia."
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Richard V. Allen, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, John R. Bolton, William F. Buckley, Jr., Midge Decter Robert Kagan, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, I. Lewis Libby, Edwin Meese III, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, William Schneider, Jr., Arthur Waldro, Malcolm Wallop, James Webb, Caspar Weinberger, Paul Weyrich, R. James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz
Digital platform powered by Wyith Limited, Wyith Institute.
Wyith Limited and Wyith Institute are associated businesses operated by the Office of Dr Raymond Cheng • Dr Raymond Cheng & Partners Ltd and The Commentary Ltd.
Photo credits for top title bar, from left to right: Iza H (Work),
Lukasz Gumowski (Blue balls),
Marcin Bania (Smiling and naked),
Lautaro Gonda (Milan station),
Jan Abt (Girl taking a picture),
Daniel Tang (Hot switch),
Barbara Henry (Moriah reading),
Ralf Herrmann (Checkmate II),
Marko Roeper (Led #4),
Ian Russell (Girl in downtown LA).
Note: Animated GIF graphics and clipart obtained from
amazing-animations.com, gifs.net, findicons.com, clker.com and sevenoaksart.co.uk.
Sketches, cartoons and other handdrawings courtesy of Alice-the-Artist.
This is not the American Jewish Committee's Commentary Magazine
nor are we in any way affiliated with them. To visit AJC's magazine,
please go to commentarymagazine.com instead, thank you for your attention.
This site is best viewed with
Microsoft® Internet Explorer 6.0 or above,
minimum 1024x768 16M color-depth resolution.
The Commentary Group
and its personnel do not endorse external sites and are not
responsible for the content of these websites. All external sites
will open in a new browser window.
For those you who don't have time
to read all our news excerpts about the Asian island
disputes (links above), you may find the following video,
"The economic impact of a war between Japan and China",
"This trial is another example of the Kremlin's attempts to discourage and delegitimize dissent. It is likely to backfire."
John Dalhuisen, Director of Amnesty International's Europe and Central Asia Programme
I am proud to announce that
the Commentary.com website is now carrying the technology updates
from Usman Khurshid's Technize.net.
Usman is a network consultant and works in a mixed environment
of Windows and Linux platforms.
He likes to study about the
latest advancements in computer technology and shares his views on his blog.
Oh, please do not get me wrong.
This new section is not about computers, electronics or
any engineering stuff, but rather I am currently constructing
a new corpus based on Spectrum, the monthly publication
from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers USA,
from July 2007 to date. Having been a member for
over 20 years since 1992, I am always fascinated by
some of the terms scientists use when they talk about or
envision their new inventions or methodologies. How many of
them eventually come into practice? Could there be
some insights we could possibly derive, from
the linguistics perspective?
IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This website is published and designed by Raymond Cheng, PhD DPA
and reflects only his personal views and opinions in his
individual capacity. It does not represent the views and opinions
of his firm, employer(s), students, etc., and is not in
any way sponsored or endorsed by any other thrid parties.
Click here to read my full disclaimer