The Rising East
THE differing doctrines surrounding the term "One China" are worthy of a Jesuit theologian or a Talmudic scholar. Surely no phrase in the political and diplomatic lexicon of Asia today is more subject to intricate scrutiny and conflicting interpretations. One day peace may
depend on the definition
of ‘One China’Why should anyone care; why cannot this seemingly arcane formula be left to the diplomats to debate over tea? Because defining "One China" is the stuff of international posturing and negotiations and, much worse, could be the cause for miscalculation and war.
This past week, for instance, Chinese leaders have roundly accused the U.S. of flagrantly violating the "One China" policy by permitting President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to stop over in New York on his way to Central America. In addition, President Bush was lambasted for meeting with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal Tibetan leader who seeks autonomy for his people within the Chinese realm. Beijing considers him a separatist seeking to split "One China."
At the very real risk of oversimplifying, there are at least five meanings of "One China" and they are as different as day and night -- with dawn and dusk thrown in.
In the Peoples Republic of China, "One China" means that Beijing has the right to rule Taiwan, Tibet and several other regions. "Taiwan," says a Beijing White Paper, "is an inalienable part of China." President Jiang Zemin has insisted that Taiwan accept Beijing's definition of "One China" before negotiating on trade, sporting events, or unification of the mainland and the island.
This is like saying that you must hand over the deed to your house and after that we will discuss the conditions under which you can live there.
IN TAIWAN, the meaning of "One China" depends on who is talking. During the days of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, it meant that his regime was the sole and legitimate government of all China, an absurd claim. Over time, that claim has been quietly set aside by more pragmatic leaders.
Today, President Chen declines to define "One China," saying only that it could be a topic for discussion between his government and that on the mainland. He says that Taiwan is a sovereign nation that his government controls and any change must have the approval of his voters and taxpayers, most having indicated that they prefer to leave it meaningless.
For Washington, the phrase "One China" originated in the 1972 Shanghai Communique at the end of President Richard Nixon's famous meeting with the revolutionary Chinese leader, Mao Zedong. It said the United States "acknowledges" that China maintains "there is but one China and Taiwan is a part of China."
Note the United States said it "acknowledges" the Chinese claim; it did not say the U.S. "accepts" the Chinese position. The United States also insisted that disputes between China and Taiwan be settled peacefully and, more recently, that any resolution have the consent of the people of Taiwan.
JAPAN'S OFFICIAL position on "One China" is to avoid defining it. Japan acquired Taiwan in 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki ending the Sino-Japanese War. After World War II, Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 -- but did not say to whom sovereignty passed. Japanese diplomats say that is for the victors in the war to decide, which allows them to slip off the hook.
Others nations have adopted a similar "One China" policy without saying what it really means. Trade Minister Mark Vaile of Australia said in Canberra last fall: "While maintaining a one-China policy, we also reserve the right to maintain the current status of the relationship between Australia and Taiwan."
Some Chinese, Asian and American scholars define "One China" as meaning those who live in a Chinese cultural sphere -- mainland, Hong Kong and Macao, Taiwan, Singapore and the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and Hawaii, even if they have made their homes here for five or six generations.
This ambiguity has so far helped to keep China and Taiwan from armed conflict, although China has occasionally fired missiles toward Taiwan and built up its forces across the strait. The critical question: How long will "One China" work before it becomes a cause for war?
Richard Halloran is editorial director of the Star-Bulletin.
He can be reached by e-mail at rhalloran@starbulletin.com