www.ChinaPost.com.tw


Parties split on interpreting United States stance

Sunday, September 2, 2007
The China Post staff


A senior U.S. official's latest denial of the Republic of China's statehood has sent opposing camps in Taiwan debating the remark's implications for the country's bid to join the United Nations.

Some in the opposition have claimed that Washington actually leaves the door open for ROC to rejoin the U.N., judging from what Dennis Wilder, senior director for East Asian Affairs of the U.S. National Security Council, said on Thursday.

But leaders from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party party have described the opposition camp's interpretation of Wilder's remarks as "wishful thinking."

Wilder on Thursday maintained that "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not a state in the international Community."

"The position of the United States government is that the ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided... for many, many years," he said.

But Kuomintang Legislator Su Chi has argued that most observers have misinterpreted Wilder's remarks.

The U.S. official was simply pointing out a fact about the ROC not being a state in the international community and therefore could not be accepted into the U.N., said Su, who headed the Mainland Affairs Council in the 1990s.

But Wilder was also stating Washington's position that the ROC issue has been undecided.

"The U.S. does not deny the ROC, it only thinks that the ROC's international status has been undecided, leaving room for the ROC's return to the U.N. in the future," Su was cited by the United Evening News as arguing.

Su admitted that the ROC has been faced with an impasse in the international community, but maintained that it is still better off continuing the use of the designation "ROC" rather than "Taiwan."

If Taiwan changed its national title to "Taiwan," as proposed by President Chen Shui-bian, the island would be left without a single friend, Su said.

KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou claimed that the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act sees the ROC as a "foreign government," and Washington has never raised any objection since 1994, when the ROC first launched its bid to return to the U.N.

"There is still room for discussion," Ma said, referring to the KMT's agenda to have the country rejoin the U.N. as the ROC, which lost its U.N. membership to the People's Republic of China in 1971.

The DPP has a different agenda concerning the country's U.N. bid. It has stepped up a campaign seeking to use the name "Taiwan" in the country's attempt to join the world body. President Chen has proposed holding a referendum on the DPP's U.N. bid.

DPP lawmakers yesterday called his interpretation of Wilder's remarks as "wishful thinking."

DPP Legislator Wang Sing-nan said as Washington and Taipei do not have diplomatic relationships, it is natural for the U.S. to describe "the ROC and Taiwan as not being a country."

DPP Legislator Hsiao Bi-khim pointed out that since Washington established diplomatic ties with Beijing in 1979, the U.S. has never recognized the ROC's statehood.

She said she could not agree with Su's argument that Wilder's remarks represent the U.S.' friendly position concerning the ROC's status.

"Wilder's remarks involve international political issues, as well as international interests and China's hegemony. The opposition camp's reading, I'm afraid, is only meant to make themselves happy."

President Chen on Friday dismissed Wilder's claims that Taiwan is "not a state" and reaffirmed his administration's determination to continue pushing for the country's inclusion in the United Nations under the name Taiwan.

"This is a fact," Chen said, referring to Wilder's claims. "But the official name Republic of China is changeable."

The president said Wilder's remarks indicate that neither will the KMT's plan for the ROC to return to the U.N. win U.S. support.

Chen said that if the country's attempt to return to the U.N. under the name "ROC" would be a direct challenge to the legitimacy of China's U.N. membership.

Copyright © 1999 – 2009 The China Post.
Back to Story