Some Helpful Articles:

Yesterday we saw two helpful and refreshingly fair articles on the internet.

The first is an editorial by the Houston Chronicle, entitled, "Their dilemma, and ours," in which the Chronicle underscorses the dark irony we have to live with when democratic Taiwan continues to get the international 'cold shoulder', while oppressive Beijing happily frolicks towards the 2008 Summer Olympics without the slightest reform to China's cruel and stifling political system. Some highlights:

Neither independent nor subjugated, commanding one of the world's largest economies but officially recognized by few nations, the island democracy of Taiwan endures a tenuous existence in a world that requires global access. If that weren't bad enough, it is menaced by a hostile neighbor that claims ownership.

and:

Taiwan's dilemma offers a similar set of difficulties for the United States. Taiwan's de facto U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wu, outlined for members of the Houston World Affairs Council the several bitter ironies of the situation. The United States must maintain workable relations with China and can't recognize Taiwan, even though:

• China menaces Taiwan with missiles and threats, while Taiwan poses a danger to no one.
• Taiwan is a major U.S. trading partner, importing many tons of agricultural products, including Texas beef, and exporting electronic equipment that meets high standards of quality and safety. China sends us tainted food and toxic toys.
• Taiwan has curbed its air and water pollution, but China's regime fears environmental activists more than environmental degradation.

Chinese leader Hu Jintao recently called for talks with Taipei officials to maintain peace in the region. China and Taiwan should "resume talks on an equal footing as soon as possible," Hu said before his recent summit with President Bush in Washington.

and:

As for the United States, the least it can do is grant Taiwan the same generous trading terms it recently gave South Korea, one of Taiwan's chief competitors. Washington should also champion Taiwan's desire to work with vital international institutions such as the United Nations' World Health Organization. To deny Taiwan access is to punish a peaceful, democratic ally while rewarding an oppressive competitor.

We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Pay particular attention to the call for increased trade (TUFTA?) and UN/WHO membership for Taiwan in the pentultimate sentence. These actions are the first solid step towards righting the wrongs collectively forced upon Taiwan over the many years that it has been a legitimate democracy.

The second article was by Simon Tisdall of the U.K. rag The Guardian. Entitled, "Taiwan squeezed as US and China negotiate," it highlights an unsettlying dynamic that was recently discussed during a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation: the more the United States suffers from diplomatic tunnel vision dealing with the Middle East, the more it is forced to rely on major regional players like China to help maintain at least a semblance of order elsewhere in the world. In doing so however, the United States may end up bargaining away foreign affairs objectives it would never have conceded otherwise. One can easily see how this might apply to Taiwan:

According to Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-ban, China now has 988 missiles aimed at Taiwanese targets and is continually adding to its arsenal. Chen, who strongly opposes unification and the communists' "one China" mantra, recently described Beijing as a threat to regional peace and said it was preparing to take the island by force by 2015. Last month China said it had deployed a high-performance radar system designed to complement its surface-to-air missiles and jet fighter interceptors.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, questioned the build-up during a visit to Beijing last week. The two sides agreed to create a military hotline to help defuse crises. But Gates' overriding stated priority was securing China's backing for steps to curb Iran's nuclear activities. On Taiwan, he merely reiterated Washington's formulaic support for maintaining the status quo.

. . .Taiwanese officials say China has become adept at manipulating the Bush administration. "They are under pressure from China. China is very clever. If they want to do something on Taiwan, they call the White House and tell the Americans that Taiwan is rocking the boat. Then the US government puts pressure on us," a senior official said. "Of course we are afraid about the growing cooperation between the US and China. It's a problem for us. It is definitely squeezing Taiwan."

Lost in the Mail: PRC fails to deliver vital health alerts to Taiwan

What do the government of China and the classic computer game "Oregon Trail" have in common?

They both will give you the occasional case of dysentery:

The government of China recently delayed relaying crucial information provided to it by the World Health Organization (WHO) to Taiwan for 10 days, an unnecessary decision that risked exposing thousands of Taiwanese to the deadly bacterial disease dysentery.

The news came from within the WHO that Thailand had recently exported several shipments of baby corn that were possibly contaminated with the pathogenic bacteria Shigella dysenteriae, which, when ingested, induces the deadliest form of the disease dysentery. Taiwan is barred from membership in the WHO as it is an organization under the umbrella of the United Nations. The government of the People's Republic of China, due to its consistently irrational bouts of paranoia regarding Taiwan's international status, has repeatedly pressured the WHO to sign memoranda of understanding (MOUs), some of which are classified, which more or less assure Beijing that the World Health Organization will continue to toe the China line.

Meanwhile, the 23 million citizens of Taiwan have been excluded from direct representation in the organization, an alarming fact that represents a gaping hole in the global health, disease control and response network the WHO was formed to maintain. Of course, the PRC claims that Taiwan is covered by the WHO, as the island is supposedly a province of China -- a dilusionary assertion that the international community is forced to accept.

The consequence of this policy of appeasement towards Beijing is that the global health network remains incomplete, at great risk not only to the 23 million people on Taiwan but indeed to people everywhere. Imagine what happens when the government of China decides to use the same stalling tactics if, say, they are informed that an airborne pathogen has possibly traveled to Taiwan. As a large shipping and commercial transportation hub, such a disease could easily leapfrog all over the planet using Taiwan as a departure point before Beijing decides it has the time of day to let the authorities on Taiwan know about it. Such a global risk taken for the sake of Beijing's hubris is unacceptable.

These recent developments provide a case in point. Beijing claims that Taiwan is a territory that falls under its jurisdiction, yet when the international community agrees to go along with this bogus idea, China's government consistently shirks all responsibilities regarding Taiwan. Not only does it consistently wave military threats under Taiwan's nose and take every measure to isolate Taiwan's people politically and economically, the PRC government also apparently finds it acceptable to wait ten whole days to inform the people of Taiwan that, sorry:

2007 Baseball World Cup opens in Taiwan

Baseball has become a truly international sport over the years, even if many in the United States may not be very aware of the increasing popularity of their favorite pastime. When Cuba won last year's World Cup over second place-winner the Netherlands, there were many American baseball fans who opened their paper to the sports page the next day, and then exclaimed to themeselves, "the Netherlands?"

[The International Baseball Federation, IBAF, notes on their website that the Netherlands has had a professional baseball league since 1922]

Alas, it is the fortunate truth: today baseball has a presence in countries all over the globe. This year's Baseball World Cup, which opened today after a day of rain delays on Taiwan, includes as diverse a set as you'll find anywhere. More diverse, in fact, than in the UN, as Taiwan's own national team is competing in the event, albeit under the name "Chinese Taipei." Just to give you an idea, todays matches were (winner w/ asterisk): Spain v. Panama*, South Africa v. Japan*, Mexico v. United States*, Cuba* v. Australia, Netherlands* v. Thailand, Korea v. Canada*, and Germany v. Venezuela*, with Taiwan v. Italy postponed due to rain.

In our opinion, anything international hosted in Taiwan, especially a sport as fun and accessible as baseball, is a win for the good guys when it comes to furthering Taiwan's status in the international community. We wish Taiwan's baseball team much luck and hope they progress far into the tournament. As for the Netherlands, we here at R.O.C. the Boat have a new-found respect for the Dutch when it comes to all things stickball.

Oh, and by the way:

Refocused: Beijing, Burma, and the UN

In his article, "Burmese Blood is the UN's Shame," Professor Hu Shaojiang of the University of Cambrige's China Research Center reminds us of the real "shame" when it comes to the UN: the organizational composition of the UN allows powerful-yet-irresponsible nations with permanent seats on the Security Council to hijack the entire international political process.

There was essentially only one moment during the six decade-long history of the United Nations, Hu reminds us, that the UN was able to take firm action in response to an international crisis. That was when the Soviet Union boycotted a session of the General Assembly back in the 1950s, unintentionally clearing the way for the Western powers to lock in a vote in favor of fighting North Korea at the outset of the Korean War.

Before and ever since, virtually every renegade dictator, every despotic and backwards government to arise during the history of the UN has been able to find at least one supporter among the five permanent members of the Security Council. In his commentary, Hu illustrates the repeated political hamstringing that has resulted from this dynamic, paired with the notoriously gratuitous veto power enshrined in the UN Charter:

It is the totalitarian Chinese government that is supporting its counterpart in Burma. In fact, back in January, several democratic countries submitted a proposal that the United Nations pressure the military government in Burma to stop political repression. However, China and Russia, as permanent members of the Security Council, vetoed the proposal.

On the eve of the crackdown against monks and civilians in September, a number of countries had proposed a U.N. resolution calling for restraint in Burma, to prevent a repeat of the brutal suppression that occurred in Burma 19 years ago. But again China's opposition put the proposal on the shelf. With the support of big brother China, the Burmese military leaders were especially violent in suppressing the protests.

The United Nations accomplished nothing toward protecting the legal rights of Burma's citizens, once again revealing its incapability in dealing with major international affairs. As a matter of fact, since the United Nations was founded it has almost never played a decisive role in major international issues.

The only exception was in the early 1950s when the United Nations discussed whether or not to fight against the North Korean regime led by Kim Il Sung, which had invaded South Korea. Because the former Soviet Union made a wrong decision and did not attend the meeting, the United Nations had a good opportunity to exercise justice.

During the Cold War period, there was no understanding and no forgiveness among the superpowers. The United Nations didn't have the chance to work even in a superficial function as a rubber stamp. This situation hasn't really improved substantially even now that the Cold War is over.

. . . and so on, and so forth.

It is this same veto power, of course, that has been the central factor in barring Taiwan's government from even observer status in the UN all these years since 1971. Yet political disenfranchisement pales in comparison to the horrendous atrocities that are allowed to run their course, as concerned nations with a respect for international law feel they must pass the buck to the UN for action, only to run into the recurring truth that the UN is inherently unable to act.

China's government repeatedly reminds us that an unrestricted veto is more power than any member of the United Nations is fit to singularly wield. As Hu states:

"Equality among countries" is not equivalent to "equality among governments." If we let totalitarian governments enjoy the same rights as democratic ones that are elected by their citizens' free choice, it is humiliating to people who are deprived of their rights under totalitarian governments. . . .if a country violently suppresses its people's right to participate in political affairs, that country's right to speak and participate in international affairs should be taken away.

Currently, each individual UN Resolution, no matter how token in nature, can be tossed out at the drop of a hat without the slightest need of justification. At the very least, it would seem reasonable for the individual veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council to be replaced with, say, a single veto that can only be wielded by a 3-2 vote or with the unanimous consent of all five members.

Only when the world's majority of humanitarian, peaceful-minded nations are free to act in concert despite the dissent of a small minority of powerful despots will the UN be a politically relavent institution, and the reward for every nation will be a more peaceful and democratic globe.

Thinly Veiled Threats

Some great commentary from journalist Ian Williams has been up on the Guardian's website since Monday. Apparently Mr. Williams got a little phone call from Beijing's Bureau of Public Diplomacy - Mobster Division:

Bullying and diplomacy
Ian Williams
September 17, 2007 8:30 PM


Last week I got a personal taste of Beijing's diplomacy. Their mission to the United Nations called me up and warned at the beginning and end of a 20 minute impromptu telephone debate that if I appeared on a panel with Taiwan's "so-called" President Chen Shui-bian they would "take it very seriously."

Around the world, most governments seem to quail in the face of such implied threats. In contrast, seeing no sign of Chinese gunboats in the East River, and reckoning that the worst that could happen was my missing the 2008 Olympics, the bluster reinforced my determination.On Friday I appeared not only with President Chen on a video link but with John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, in person, and on Saturday on a platform with the Taiwanese sea-goddess Matsu, flown over on her own seat to New York.

I was thinking that if Bolton and I could agree on any issue, Matsu may have been working hard on the miracle front. She will have to work even harder to get Beijing in a reasonable mode.
China's diplomat told me that Chen was a trouble-maker, and took even more umbrage when I pointed out that in fact it was the mainland that was pointing almost a thousand missiles at Taiwan, and not the other way round. "We will consider that you support Taiwanese independence," she accused ominously. Actually, I pointed out that I was neutral on that question, which was up to the Taiwanese to decide, but that I did strongly support their right to decide, just as I had vociferously supported the right to self determination of the Timorese, the Sahrawis of the Western Sahara, Palestinians and Kosovans.

"That is in violation of international law," she snapped. Well, no, I pointed out. Self-determination for former colonial territories was a basic principle of the United Nations, and indeed Mao told Edgar Snow, as reported in Red Star Over China, that Formosa - as Taiwan was then known - would be able to choose its own destiny when Japan was defeated.
The PRC is more used to an attitude of "whatever you say, comrade," than being argued with, and it all just seemed to make her angrier. However, as often, the discussion made me think. Possibly the worst way to dissuade people who are determined to secede is to try to bully them. I pointed out that if forty years ago Spain had made nice with the Gibraltarians, then by now the people on the Rock would be petitioning to join Spain and buy all those giveaway fincas along the coast.

If the British had given Ireland dominion status before the first world war, Mrs Windsor would likely be making annual visits to open the Irish parliament. In contrast , much later in the century, London had conceded bilingualism, and Welsh radio and TV and in the end almost had to force the Welsh to accept devolution.

The negative examples, from Timor to Kosovo are quite clear. Battering people into loyalty is a highly ineffective strategy.

So why should anyone worry about a small faraway island of which we know little? Well of course, there is the little matter that Taiwan is a democracy, whose people want to choose their own fate, but experience teaches us that defending democracy usually only works politically in conjunction with less altruistic motives.

Well, there is one serious matter of self-interest for much of the globe. Of course it is a bit much to expect a joined-up foreign policy from the Bush administration but even so I was shocked to discover that Washington, kowtowing to Beijing, has almost no official contacts with Taiwan - even though the US is committed to defending the island against Chinese attacks. They restricted President Chen to a 15 minute stopover in Alaska on his last trip back from central America. They do not allow him to visit Washington. That is seriously worrying. US should keep its word to Taiwan. But the signals it is currently sending to China, of acquiescence to its policies towards the island, are reminiscent of those Margaret Thatcher sent to Galtieri of Argentina over the Falklands. But any conflict resulting would be far, far bigger than a side show in semi-arctic islands full of sheep and penguins.

General Committee keeps Taiwan membership off the Agenda

UN General Assembly President Kerim opens the 62nd Session

(UN Photo/Marco Castro)

Wednesday, around 10 AM Eastern Time, the UN General Committee convened to deliberate over and finalize the agenda for the 62nd UN General Assembly. 16 of Taiwan's allies had proposed August 14 in a written document that Taiwan's application for membership be added for consideration to the GA's agenda. Before voting on this measure, the chairman (also the President of the General Assembly: Srgjan Kerim of Macedonia) suggested that it be debated with representative arguments from two supporters of Taiwan membership and two of its detractors.

Palau, one of Taiwan's Pacific allies, voiced its opposition to the chairman's proposal, stating that the floor should be left open for all interested parties to have a voice in the debate. Sri Lanka, one of the PRC's allies, voiced its support for the chairman's suggestion. The chairman's proposal for a "2 v. 2" debate was put to a vote and passed, 34 countries in favor and 3 against.

In the ensuing debate, St. Vincent and the Grenadines took the floor first on behalf of Taiwan, followed by China, after which spoke Taiwan's ally the Solomon Islands, and lastly Egypt, which was in opposition to adding the item to the General Assembly agenda.

No consensus was reached on whether to add the item to the agenda, therefore the Chairman dismissed the item and the issue of Taiwan's application for UN membership was not allowed to be openly debated in the General Assembly this year.

Those were the proceedings and, this being Friday, the "failure" of Taiwan's fifteenth consecutive application to the UN is allready old news. We apologize in our tardiness for putting off this post.

Our analysis is that, although China is continuing to successfully bar Taiwan from the UN, it had better be careful, as each year's victory may become increasingly pyrrhic. China's severe whip-cracking in the UN when it comes to this issue may get the job done, but many countries may start to chafe at the incessant pressure to openly ignore the ideals of open dialogue and equal representation upon which the United Nations is based.

Furthermore, this is backward motion if China ever hopes to endear itself with the Taiwanese. China may be holding off on taking military action to get what they want (because they can't), but Beijing sure isn't making any progress towards a political resolution in the meantime. Every year that common citizens on Taiwan go without international representation is another year that Taiwanese get increasingly estranged from their mainland neighbor.

And what was the deal with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during this whole process anyway? The Secretariat continues to cling to its ludicrous interpretation of Res. 2758 even though any first-year law student or even a high school senior on the mock trial club could deduce that the logic behind the UN's so-called One China Policy is absolutely bogus.

As we said before, Secretary-General Ban's job wasn't that difficult: he merely had to pass the letter along to the Security Council where it would surely be defeated by China's veto. If Ban is in the China pocket (the only explanation we can think of), why would China be so paranoid as to request that the Secretary-General risk his legitimacy simply to create a second layer of defense for what is allready admittedly a fool-proof firewall? It's proof of China's characteristic authoritarian paranoia and an embarrasment to the organization as a whole.

China loves to point the finger and portray Taiwan as the irresponsible "agitator" vis-à-vis the status quo, when in reality, Taiwan's government is cautiously attempting to extricate its people from political limbo while China continues to shrug off the idea of participating in global trade and politics with even a modicum of responsibility. When will the double-standard end?

62nd General Assembly Convenes Today

Today the first session of the 62nd United Nations General Assembly will convene in New York City, albeit incomplete with the continued exclusion of one nation: Taiwan. Proceedings can be viewed live from the UN web site -- just click on the link that says "Radio, TV, Photo" and go from there.

At Zero Hour, Indian Academic Weighs In

Yesterday an op-ed piece by Ramesh Thakur, a professor at the University of Waterloo and former senior vice rector of the UN University in Tokyo, appeared in the Times of India supporting Taiwan's application for UN membership. Mr. Thakur's essay follows:

Membership to the United Nations is supposed to be open to ‘all peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and are able and willing to carry out these obligations’. The 51 founding members were the original coalition of the able and willing, but things have come a long way since. Those both able and willing are not able to be members, even as it would appear that the UN has adopted a liberal approach to membership.

Over the years, the desire to have at least one international organisation aspiring to universal representation of the full human family trumped all doubts and hesitations. The member-ship has accordingly almost quadrupled to 192.

This remarkable growth, however, does not mean the membership issues have been settled. In some cases the battle over membership took the form of representation. An especially egregious example was Cambodia when the western and South East Asian countries preferred to recognise and deal with the murderous Khmer Rouge rather than Hun Sen regime.

Taipei represented China since the inception of the UN to 1971, even as the communists were ruling China. This continued because the Cold War was raging, the West controlled the numbers and called the shots in the United Nations.

However, the more things change, the more they remain the same. As China took its rightful place, Taiwan was made to 'disappear'. In July, Taiwan’s bid for UN membership was unceremoniously rejected.

More than an international bureaucracy and a forum for engaging in intergovernmental trench warfare, the UN represents an idealised world in which nations work together harmoniously for the common good. Values are central to its identity. That is why corruption, fraud and sexual misconduct by UN personnel are so damaging. While the oil-for-food scandal was mostly a media beat-up, financial and sexual misconduct by UN peacekeepers is more pervasive and has been going on for a longer period than the organisation is prepared to admit. Because it will not admit to the scale, it cannot get rid of the problem.

The biggest and longest running scandal is the way in which Taiwan has been banned from the UN. Taiwan is refused membership, is not granted observer status, and does not figure in the UN’s statistical databases.

On July 19, Taiwan submitted, yet again, its application for admission to the UN. It satisfies all the normal criteria of a state: territory, people and effective control by a stable government. But on July 23 the UN Office of Legal Affairs returned the application. The decision has little to do with the merits of the application and everything to do with the geopolitics of China as a permanent member of the Security Council.

Where does this leave all the fine talk of democracy, human rights and self-determination in Kosovo, East Timor and elsewhere? Taiwan is better credentialled than most of them. Its population of 23 million is almost the combined total of Australia and New Zealand, and bigger than scores of UN member states, including East Timor (under one million) and Kosovo (over two million).

In his impressive campaign for the post of UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon made much of the fact that he is from a country that has actually made the transition from poor to high-income and from an authoritarian to a democratic regime.

Like South Korea, Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and a dynamic economy. Both countries embody fundamental UN ideals, values and aspirations.

As Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhe-nitsyn noted, the United Nations is the place where the peoples of the world are often served up to the designs of governments. Ban was memorably described by an unnamed diplomat as having hit the ground stumbling in January. He could redeem himself by speaking up for the rights of Taiwanese to determine their own destiny and the duty of the international community to respect their choice.

The Art of (Diplomatic) War

Now that the three-way public tussle between China, Taiwan, and the United States is sufficiently focused in our collective rear-view, several helpful analyses have come across our radar that practically evaluate the reasoning behind each government's recent actions and the best step forward. In particular, these articles and documents focus on how Taiwan-U.S. relations may be improved -- one may even say salvaged -- in the near future.

The first was brought to our attention by Michael Turton in a posting yesterday on his blog, The View From Taiwan. John Tkacik of the Heritage Foundation has weighed in with a logically-argued Web Memo, suggesting some very attainable tactical changes on the part of Washington and Taipei. Number one on our list out of Tkacik's recommendations is enhanced communication. To Taipei Tkacik says:

Coordinating with the United States and other key democracies is essential to preserving Taiwan's international personality in the United Nations, in its agencies, and across a broad spectrum of world organizations. Taiwan's leaders must approach these issues with a systematic and strategic outlook.

And for Washington?

Upgrading the rank and influence of the U.S. representative in Taiwan would be a good start. Giving Taiwan's representatives in the U.S. regular access to the National Security Counsel, along with Defense, State, and Commerce Department staff, is also desirable.

When it comes to maintaining friendships -- personally or internationally -- communication always helps.

Tkacik's call for a more systematic and strategic outlook concerning Taiwan's participation in the global community was echoed in yesterday's Nelson Report -- which quotes remarks made by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for China Tom Christensen at the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council meeting in Annapolis. Some of Christensen's words:

Whether we like it or not, most countries in the world accept Beijing's characterization of Taiwan, and, when energized, the PRC can call in overwhelming support to marginalize Taipei. The Taiwan people are, of course, long accustomed to PRC pressure, and we are certainly not telling them not to resist these efforts; our own position is far from passive. That said, Taipei needs to push back intelligently and in a sophisticated manner that plays to its strengths. Frontal assaults on Beijing's sensitivities are bound to fail and, at the end of the day, leave Taipei further behind.

Whether Taiwan ultimately holds the referendum on UN membership or not, it is certainly a valuable point that 'assymetric' diplomatic challenges to China's eminence in the United Nations are needed.

Direct and open appeals for the realization of equal rights work great for drumming up publicity, but Taipei will probably have to work in a more oblique and creative (as a chess player might say, "baroque") fashion in order to navigate around Beijing's strengths and play off of China's weaknesses.

Keeping the world community skeptical about Beijing '08 -- some are allready calling 2008 the "Genocide Olympics" -- seems to us like a logical start. In the meantime, we're breaking open our copies of Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz.

Taiwan Hindered in Helping Environment

Today the Taipei Times reports on how delegates from Taiwan's Environmental Protection Agency, after being invited to participate in the Basel Convention on Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (fun title), were turned away upon arrival because their idendification documents had been issued by the Taiwan government:

The administration sent a total of six representatives to the Basel Convention this year. Two of them returned to Taiwan early on Sunday and told reporters about the situation.

Lai Ying-ying (賴瑩瑩), a senior specialist at the EPA's waste management department, said the convention was mainly attended by professionals to discuss the latest technology for handling hazardous waste.

Lai said that the administration submitted an online application to the UN Secretariat before departing for the convention. To avoid sensitive political issues, the administration applied under the name of the Institute of Environment and Resource (IER), a non-governmental group that is partially supported by the EPA.

Lai noted the Basel Secretariat in Geneva had also sent them a confirmation e-mail upon receipt of their application, telling representatives to bring a copy of the e-mail to the registration department to get badges.

However, Lai said that the Taiwanese representatives were denied entry to the convention after they showed the registration officials their passports, and were told that there had been a change in regulations governing the admission of observers.

Based on a report issued last Friday by the UN Environment Programme, the UN Security and Safety Section in Geneva had advised that representatives from Taiwan "could not be accredited to participate at the current session because their accreditation documents had been issued by Taiwan, which is not a Member State of the United Nations."

The report said the Secretariat of the Basel Convention in Geneva "had been surprised" by the situation, as the rule had never been applied previously and Taiwan had made useful contributions on the issue of e-waste.

This is a textbook example of how the United Nations is going overboard in its efforts to please China and snub Taiwan at every turn. It also underscores China's general disconcern for issues pertaining to the environment, world health, or any of the other numerous issues UN bodies are created to address. Taiwan is a major playor in the electronics industry, as this article points out -- and yet China could care less if the convention doesn't benefit from the islands expertise with handling electronic waste. Apparently the UN also doesn't care, or at least not enough to refrain from kow-towing to Beijing at every turn.

Financial Times: Bush Pushes China on Democracy

APEC roundup.

It seems that for now the United States will persist in pressuring Taiwan's President Chen to back down over the proposed referendum on UN membership, yet the pitched battle of rhetoric that took place at the end of last week seems to have produced more gains than losses for Taiwan.

First, there was the diplomatic intervention by the United States that quashed China's proposal to hold a vote in the General Assembly on Taiwan's sovereign status. Then during the APEC meeting, as the rock-solid Financial Times reports, President Bush took the opportunity to drive home the message to Chinese President Hu Jintao:

The remarks were made in a speech on Friday attended by Mr Hu at the Sydney Opera House, ahead of the Apec regional summit in the city this weekend.

“We will encourage China to open up its political system and give greater voice to its people,” said Mr Bush, according to remarks released prior to delivery. “As our relationships with South Korea and Taiwan during the cold war prove, it is possible to maintain friendships and push toward democracy at the same time.”

He said the Olympics would be a “moment of pride for the Chinese people”, when “the eyes of the world fall on Beijing”.

“We urge China’s leaders to use this moment to show confidence by demonstrating a commitment to greater openness and tolerance,” he added.

The message to China seems clear -- whereas the Bush and Chen administrations may currently stand in disagreement over the timeliness and prudence of the retooled and renewed push for UN membership, Taiwan democracy remains a regional strategic asset and a valuable cause the United States is willing to defend. Furthermore, Beijing should use the 2008 Summer Olympics as an opportunity to appreciate the open flow of information that Beijing will either permit during the Beijing Games, or that will be pried from the government's clutches by international reporters.

With its lust for absolute power, as with all other forms of addiction, Beijing admitting it has a problem will have to be the first step on its 'long road to recovery'.

President Chen at AEI, Presidents Bush and Hu at APEC

Initially, reports coming out of the bilataral meeting between American and Chinese Presidents George Bush and Hu Jintao suggested that the two leaders had sidestepped the issue of Taiwan while speaking on the sidelines of the APEC meeting in Sydney. Major topics of discussion were initially reported as Chinese product safety (graciously brought up by President Hu without any prodding from the U.S. side), artificially low valuation of the yuan, North Korea and -- 'oh yes, Mr. President, would you be so kind as to attend the Beijing Olympics next summer?' (Bush is reportedly planning to leave international politics in the States and attend the Games as a sports fan).

Yet a second wave of news coverage published this morning brought to light for us two new aspects of the Bush-Hu bilateral talks: an agreement to establish what sounds like a Cold War-style military hotline between Washington and Beijing and President Hu voicing his concern over Taiwan.

The hotline strikes us as good news, instantaneous and direct dialogue is the best way to prevent misunderstanding during times of heightened tensions between global powers (unfortunately, Beijing has a past record of mysteriously not answering Washington's phone calls when Sino-U.S. tensions are high -- just because Mr. Bush no longer has to "dial" when he reaches for the reciever doesn't mean that Beijing is going to pick up).

Not so good news from yesterday's meeting comes in the form of President Hu's ominous remarks on Taiwan, reported this morning in the Washington Times:

"This year and next year are a period of high danger for the Taiwan situation," Mr. Hu told Mr. Bush in bilateral talks, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman.

"We must give stronger warnings to the Taiwan authorities," Liu Jianchao quoted the Chinese President as saying. "We cannot allow anyone to use any means to split Taiwan from the motherland."

We ask readers to take into account two aspects of President Hu's language:

1) Hu speaks of the "period of high danger" as though he is a weatherman reporting a high frequency of thundershowers over the weekend -- it can't be helped, that's just the way it is! In other words, President Bush, feel free to forget that China is the physical source of all this heightened danger.

2) We may be going out on a limb here, but refering to your country as the "Motherland" while speaking with the President of the United States (often referred to as the 'Leader of the Free World') -- probably not the best idea. Such lingo tends to reboot your average American brain and fill it with memories of our former adversary, the Soviet Union, bringing to mind stereotypical McCarthy-era images of vodka-swilling generals behind the Iron Curtain extolling the virtues and immortal greatness of 'Mother Russia' while grinding the liberties of the Common Man into the dirt with their patent leather boots.

In condensed form: refering to your country as the Motherland; Fatherland; Parental Gaurdianland . . . not the best way to ingratiate yourself with any American leader.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch (ie: back in the virtual ether, where the image and words of President Chen were being beamed via satellite into the top-story conference room at the American Enterprise Institute, which held an event on Taiwan's bid for UN membership yesterday), President Chen was refusing to give any ground on UN membership or the referendum, laying out clearly and concisely at the well-publicized event Taiwan's rational for persisting in the pursuit of both of these. Fairly well-timed, the AEI event seems to have stirred up a new round of public discourse over cross-Strait relations during a period when coverage of the issue seemed to be flagging.

For video of the conference, you can visit this page on AEI's website. Click the video link on the right of the page.

We poked around for some web video coverage of the APEC bilateral meeting (found plenty on the security-flaunting stunt put on by the cast of Chasers yesterday) but were unable to come up with anything so far. We'll take another shot at it soon.

Chris Nelson attended the AEI conference yesterday and, as perhaps Washington's top non-governmental Asia-Pacific insider, was hounded by reporters after the session. Nelson tips his hat in yesterday's Nelson Report to many of the hard-to-argue-with-both-legally-and-morally points made by Chen at the conference, but (Congressman Rohrabacher's effusive support nothwithstanding) seems to think things are going to get rougher between Taipei and Washington before they get better:

Taiwan's president Chen delivered an emotional but legalistic explanation and defense of why he will continue to pursue a national referendum on whether to pursue UN membership under the name "Taiwan", despite firm US opposition.

Chen seems to calculate that if there is a large enough public vote for the referendum next March, as planned, then a ground swell of pressure will be created on the Bush Administration to, at a minimum, stop criticizing Chen's various efforts to redefine Taiwan's international space.

No serious observer of US-Taiwan and US-China relations thinks such a plan has any chance of success, regardless of the vote, so a continued rise in tensions between
Washington and Taipei seems inevitable...with clear risks for all involved.

. . .

We'll discuss all this below, but will briefly note that it looks to us as though the US, China, and Taiwan are now locked into very different definitions of the "status quo" which increasingly conflict, and which by their very structure make maintaining the peaceful status quo increasingly difficult.

. . .

We thought there were many aspects of President Chen's presentation this morning which, from a strictly legal or strictly moral, or even strictly logical point of view, you couldn't argue much.

Who in this country is opposed to the legitimate exercise of democracy? Who doesn't
wish more democracy, more respect for the rule of law in China?

But we thought that the potentially most revealing thing Chen said and did...something which the AEI panel gamely tried to pass off with mild jokes about alternative song titles...was to actually recite word for word as his "credo" in this
matter, the lyrics from "Man of LaMancha" in which the doomed hero, Don Quixote,
says he is prepared to end up in Hell, so long as he fights the good fight and
dies with a clean conscience.

So that's about all we have for you at the moment. Yesterday was a big day in cross-strait relations and for Taiwan's UN bid -- surely there will be more news on the subject to come.

On a side note: Rest in peace, Luciano Pavarotti -- you touched the world with your voice and persona, and you really knew how to bring an audience to its knees. Nessun dorma 4 Life!

"I think a life in music is a life beautifully spent, and this is what I have devoted my life to." -LP

United States coerces China to back down on UN vote

News from early this morning:

Taipei - China, under pressure from the United States, has dropped a plan to initiate a United Nations vote affirming that Taiwan is part of China, a Taiwan newspaper said on Wednesday.

The China Times, in a dispatch from Washington DC, said China has canceled the plan for the UN vote. China now says that it is UN members' consensus that Taiwan is part of China, so there is no need for a vote.

In a nine-point clarification, the US told the UN that the assertion, 'Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China,' is not the consensus of the majority UN members, and is not the consistent policy of the US.

Washington has conveyed this stance to both the UN and Taipei, the mass-circulation Chinese-language paper said.

China originally planned to ask UN members to vote on the statement, 'Taiwan is part of China,' to block Taiwan's bid to join the UN. . .

© 2007 DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

This is a major development, as an affirmative vote on the statement "Taiwan is part of China", when linked with the Resolution 2758 statement that the "representatives of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations" would have more or less permanently closed the door to UN membership for Taiwan. Undoubtedly, more details on how the U.S. was able to lean on China and convince the PRC to give up the proposed vote will follow.

Interestingly enough, China used essentially the same justification to back away from this vote that Taiwanese politicians use in regards to declaring Taiwan's independence. Taiwan leaders will say that there is no need to declare independence because Taiwan is allready an independent country. China is now saying that there is no need to put "Taiwan is a part of China" to a vote in the UN, because it is allready a commonly accepted view by the majority of UN members. The United States explicity rejected this assertion in a nine-point clarification, saying "'Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China,' is not the consensus of the majority UN members, and is not the consistent policy of the US."

Food for Thought

This in the Taipei Times today from Gerrit van der Wees of the Taiwan Communiqué:

The most authoritative -- and internationally accepted -- definition of the nation state is given in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, to which the US is a signatory. The convention gives the following qualifications for recognition as a nation state: One, a defined territory, two, a permanent population and three, a government capable of entering into relations with other states.

Taiwan fulfills all these requirements: It is thus a nation-state. Indeed, it has diplomatic ties with 24 -- albeit small -- countries.

Recognition by other nations, however, is not a pre-condition.

If Wilder would go back into the history of the US, he would find that for the first few years of its existence, the US was not recognized by any nation and that it only attained the number of 24 diplomatic ties in 1848 -- some 72 years after the Declaration of Independence. Was the US therefore not a nation-state during that time?

In the case of Taiwan, the issue is also clouded by the fact that until only 15 years ago, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) still claimed to be the rightful government of China.

That claim was indeed not recognized by the international community.

However, following its remarkable transition to democracy in the early 1990s, Taiwan is now a free and democratic nation and its government deserves to be internationally recognized as such. We should not let Taiwan's future be held hostage by either the unsavory legacy of the KMT's repressive rule or the dictates of the Chinese Communist Party.

Taiwan is a full-fledged democracy of world citizens who want their country to be a full and equal member in the international community.

If we are serious about supporting democracy around the world, then we need to nurture the nation's fragile democracy and support its desire to join international organizations such as the UN and the WHO.

Taiwan can join the UN if the US and other Western nations have the political will to stand up for their basic principles of human rights and democracy.

Oh Snap!

UPENN PROFESSOR THROWS THE BOOK AT NEGROPONTE

The CIA World Factbook that is. In a recent letter to the editor published in the Taipei Times, UPenn Lauder Professor of International Relations Arthur Waldron shed light on the self-contradictory nature of Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte's recent criticism of Taiwan's proposed UN membership referendum. According to the CIA World Factbook, the nomenclature for Taiwan works this way:

conventional long form: none
conventional short form: Taiwan
local long form: none
local short form: T'ai-wan
former: Formosa

Which begs the question (and Waldron does beg it), how can the U.S. view Taiwan's campaign to use its common name in the UN as a change in the status quo, when Taiwan is the only name that the federal government's own agency uses? As Professor Waldron puts it:

In other words, the US does not even list "Republic of China" (which suggests Chineseness) as a possible name for your [the Taipei Times'] country (though we do list "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" for North Korea, which we do not recognize diplomatically). Instead, for decades we have insisted on "Taiwan" exclusively, which indicates to me that use of that name has long been integral to the "status quo."

Given this fact, I would like to respectfully ask the US deputy secretary of state to suggest the appropriate name to be used in your UN application. Or perhaps the problem is not the name, but rather the possibility that your [Taiwan's] 23 million people might be represented there?

Exactly. Enough with the outrageous excuses, Taiwan has explained time and time again that using the name Taiwan is not a change in the status quo, as long as the country's official name stated in the constitution remains "Republic of China". All of China's huffing and puffing about a move towards independence is nonsense, and should be treated by the U.S. as such. Membership in the United Nations does not mean a country is somehow consecrated as a permanent entity. The possibility for voluntary, peaceful unification would still remain if Taiwan were allow to join the UN. East and West Germany did just that in 1990.

Unfortunately the inconsistency that Professor Waldron points out by citing the World Fact Book also exists within the Factbook itself. As Waldron relates, the CIA has placed Taiwan second to bottom on its otherwise alphabetical list, presumably suggesting that Taiwan is a special case or not quite a legitimate country. Furthermore, the description of Taiwan's "Political Pressure Groups and Leaders" reads:

"Goals of the Taiwan independence movement include establishing a sovereign nation on Taiwan [done] and entering the UN."

So one can see at least one section (the names) in which the Agency has, knowingly or not, endorsed Taiwan's viewpoint, and other sections where it has chosen a more "Chinese" point of view.

If the Administration wants Taiwan to back down on this issue because they are worried about China resorting to violence, then by all means they ought to come out and say that. However, for them to suggest that Taiwan is bringing China's unsubstanitiated accusations and irresponsible threats upon itself is not only inconsistent, it has the potential to marr the reputation of the United States.

Exchange over Referendum Continues

Taiwan's Foreign Minister James Huang expressed his dipleasure with Dep. Secretary Negroponte's remarks over the proposed referendum on UN membership in Taiwan. This from Rti's website:

Taiwan's Foreign Minister James Huang said that he is disappointed with Negroponte's comments. Huang said that the referendum is not an attempt to move towards independence or towards altering the status quo. He said that it is just a way for the Taiwanese people to express their views.

Also, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) appears to be undaunted, if unhappy about the recent remarks coming out of the US, reports die Deutsche Presse-Agentur:

Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party said Wednesday it would mobilize in mid-September 1 million people both in Taiwan and abroad to rally for island's bid to seek UN membership and hold a referendum on the issue.


"We will hold a rally in Kaohsiung on September 15 to promote our cause," party secretary-general Lin Chia-lung declared, adding he expected half a million people to show up for the event in the southern port city.

Another 500,000 overseas supporters are expected to join the party in staging rallies in various parts of the world simultaneously, he said.

He slammed the United States, Taiwan's informal ally and biggest arms' supplier, for trying to block the island from holding a referendum on joining the United Nations in the name of "Taiwan."

. . . Taiwan's foreign ministry on Wednesday reiterated that the UN referendum had nothing to do with the island's desire to change its status. Spokesman David Wang said it was the most democratic and peaceful way for Taiwanese to express their wish to join the United Nations.

While expressing regret over Negroponte's remarks, Wang said his ministry will continue to communicate with Washington over the issue.

Negroponte's remark is the strongest warning US officials have made so far against Taiwan's upcoming UN referendum.

Finally, Rpi reports that both presidential candidates from Taiwan's two major parties have weighed in on Negroponte's comments.

Follow up on Negroponte interview

Statements made by Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte yesterday during an interview with a Chinese television news journalist are being seen by many as a slap in the face for Taiwan -- as the UN General Assembly meeting approaches and debate over the national referendum proposed for next spring continues. The Financial Times' Kathrin Hille explains it this way:

Speaking during an interview with a Chinese television network, Mr Negroponte said: "We oppose the notion of that kind of a referendum because we see that as a step towards the declaration – towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo."

. . . The US previously had only said that it opposed the plan because it appeared aimed at changing the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. Calling it a step towards a declaration of independence would be in line with official comments from the Chinese government.

Observers said Mr Negroponte's appearance should be understood as a move to
demonstrate to China that Washington was raising the pressure on Taipei. "Phoenix broadcasts mainly to the Chinese mainland. So it does not take much interpretation to see that this is a message aimed at a Chinese audience," said a US diplomat.

Whether this move will placate or embolden Beijing remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the editorial department of the Taipei Times hit back with some fierce critiques of the United States' recent position over Taiwan's campaign for UN membership and the proposed referendum. The Times expressed exasperation at the continuing prospect of American politicians and diplomats taking a patronizing tone towards Taiwan and suggesting that the country focus on strengthening or consolidating its democratic system (an objective they seem to believe attaining membership in the UN doesn't fall under).

We think the editorial went too far by sarcastically disparaging American democracy throughout the piece, and finishing by saying the issue "begs the question: Who should be advising whom on the need to further one's democracy?" Yet point taken. Comments by American officials and leaders on the supposed need for Taiwan to "consolidate" its democratic system are just red herrings that meagerly attempt to suggest that Taiwan somehow isn't ready to participate in the UN.

Dep. Secretary Negroponte clarifies US position

Yesterday, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte gave a short interview to Naichian Mo of Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV. Below is the transcript (minus the niceties at the end, to see the original transcript on the State Department's website, click here):

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for speaking today with Phoenix Television
regarding the latest political developments in Taiwan. In June, the State Department indicated that the U.S. opposes Taiwan holding a referendum on whether to apply for membership in the UN under the name of Taiwan, and called for President Chen to reject such a referendum. However, President Chen has announced that he and his party will continue to push for the referendum. So what would the U.S. do now to make sure that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait will not be further disturbed?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Let me first say that Taiwan has no better friend than the United States. We strongly support Taiwan's democracy. We support their economy. We're very impressed by their vibrant economy. And we're also, as you know, committed to the defense of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act.
So when we talk about the situation in regard to Taiwan, we talk about Taiwan in the context of a great friendship. But when it comes to this issue of a referendum as to
whether or not Taiwan join the United Nations in the name of Taiwan, we do have
great concerns. We oppose the notion of that kind of a referendum because we see that as a step towards the declaration -- towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo. And I would recall that in the past President Chen has made commitments to the American President, to the international community, and to the people of Taiwan not to take any kind of
steps that would represent a unilateral alteration of the status quo, such as a change in the official name of Taiwan.

QUESTION: And what would be the consequences for Taiwan if it continues to push for the referendum? Will the U.S. downgrade its economic or military cooperation with Taiwan?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Well, I don't -- I wouldn't want to get into that kind of a hypothetical discussion at this particular time. But what I would like to
emphasize is that we believe it's important to avoid any kind of provocative steps on the part of Taiwan. And we believe that pursuing a referendum of this kind could, as I said earlier, be interpreted as a step towards a declaration of independence, and we do not believe that that would be a constructive way on the part of the Taiwan authorities to pursue their interests.

QUESTION: You mentioned that the U.S. is committed to defend Taiwan, but Senator Warner mentioned once in a hearing that if the conflicts across the Taiwan Strait were precipitated by the wrong policy of Taiwan's officials, then the U.S. may not use full force to defend Taiwan. What's the U.S. view?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Well, these are the kinds of questions -- they're hypothetical questions that are very difficult to address before a specific situation might arise. You're correct in saying we're very committed to the defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act. We wish the peoples and authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to pursue their objectives through peaceful means.
And it's this kind of spirit that we're encouraging the authorities of Taiwan to adopt as they address this question of a referendum -- which, as I said earlier, we consider to be a mistake.

QUESTION: Thank you. My last follow-up: Some people argue that Taiwan is actually declaring independence in slow motion, and the U.S. stated that it does not support Taiwan independence. But Taiwan is a democracy. How can -- how much can the U.S. do to stop or reverse Taiwan's slow drift toward independence? Does it concern you that Taiwan's domestic politics is sliding out of the U.S. hands?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: We feel that this is a time for the authorities in Taiwan to behave in a responsible manner, to behave in a way that would advance the interests of Taiwan while, at the same time, not disturbing the situation across the Taiwan Strait. So I think there's a way of doing that, of pursuing their democracy, pursuing their vibrant economy, benefiting from the friendship, the strong friendship of a country such as the United States -- and we are certainly committed to continuing that. But we believe that it has to be done in a serious and responsible way.

Taiwan's worthiness

This op-ed piece is by Minister Shieh Jhy-wey of Taiwan's Government Information Office and was published this morning in the Washington Times - to view the original article, click here.

Taiwan's Worthiness

Proclaiming the determination of Taiwan's 23 million people to take their rightful place in the family of nations, President Chen Shui-bian submitted an application for membership in the United Nations to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on July 19. In response, a U.N. secretariat spokesperson told the press on July 23 that Taiwan's application "could not be received and was, thus, returned" in keeping with "the one-China policy of the United Nations" supposedly enshrined in General Assembly Resolution 2758.

This behavior is shocking, both for its arrogance and its ignorance.

The U.N. Charter and U.N. procedural rules unambiguously stipulate that the secretary-general shall immediately refer membership applications to the Security Council. The Security Council must deliberate the matter and make a recommendation to the General Assembly, whose members are to discuss the matter and vote on it. Therefore, with the aforementioned action, the U.N. secretariat has in effect co-opted the deliberative and decision-making powers of the U.N. member-states.

Equally disturbing is the fact that this action taken by the U.N. chief grossly misconstrues both the nature of Taiwan's membership application and the import of Resolution 2758. Taiwan's application in no way constitutes a challenge to the right of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) to represent China, nor does Resolution 2758 state that Taiwan is a part of China.

After suffering under martial law over the course of 38 years until 1987, the people of Taiwan have since then created a vibrant democracy. Taiwan was rated Asia's most free country by Freedom House in its "Freedom in the World" 2006 report.

Perhaps U.N. officials have been misled by the past actions of the now-defunct, authoritarian party-state government of the Republic of China (ROC). The old regime, led by Chiang Kai-shek, claimed that it was the sole legitimate government of China. Unwilling to coexist with the PRC in the U.N., it withdrew from the world body in 1971 just before Resolution 2758 was passed.

The democratic government of today's Taiwan makes no such claim to govern China, and it is quite happy to coexist and cooperate with the PRC government in every way possible. Although our country is still saddled with the official name "Republic of China," the great majority of us identify ourselves as "Taiwanese" and call our country "Taiwan" — as, indeed, virtually everyone else in the world does.

For this reason, and in order to underline the fact that Taiwan makes no pretense of vying for the right to govern China, Mr. Chen's application requests "the admission of Taiwan," not the Republic of China, "as a member of the United Nations." This follows the well-established precedent set by current U.N. member-states of participating in the U.N. and other international organizations under names that differ from domestically used or constitutional names.

Irrespective of the status of Taiwan, the Taiwan Strait is indisputably one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints. Given that China continuously threatens to launch a war of annexation, has deployed a thousand missiles targeted at Taiwan and refuses to talk directly with the democratically elected government in Taipei, it devolves to the United Nations to fulfill its role of international peacekeeper in the region. At the very least, the United Nations should facilitate communications between all parties who have a stake in preserving peace in East Asia before a crisis situation develops.

U.N. organizations and officials must therefore cease allowing themselves to be intimidated by the totalitarian PRC government into making unwise decisions. In particular, they must stop kowtowing to Beijing's claims concerning the status of Taiwan. Taiwan is not a province of the People's Republic of China, nor is Taiwan part of a "divided China" comprised of PRC and ROC segments.

The U.N. Charter mandates membership for all states. Taiwan is indisputably a sovereign state, having for nearly six decades fulfilled all of the criteria for statehood stipulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Unlike the PRC, Taiwan is also a state in which sovereignty rests in the hands of the people, as prescribed by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, all nations that champion the rule of law, freedom and human rights are morally bound to support the cause of U.N. membership for Taiwan. We will never trade freedom for tyranny.

What Sport! A Zesty Exchange of Views over Taiwan in the 50th State.

Below are the links to three articles (in chronological order) that constitute a recent spat over the status of Taiwan and whether or not the United States should come to the aid of Taiwan in the event of a P.R.C.-R.O.C conflict. All three appeared over the course of about a week in the Honolulu Advertiser, the first two an exchange between a columnist and a professor in the paper's "Commentary" section, and the last a letter to the editor in which Lin Yu-chong of the Taipei Times weighed in on the issue, later saying, "In my view, keeping silent on Lee's assertions can be seen as agreeing with his viewpoints."

"U.S. must defend Taiwan against China". by Richard Halloran

"U.S. likely won't defend Taiwan from China". by Oliver Lee

"Taiwan cannot be taken by force". by Lin Yu-chong

Debates over whether or not the United States should aid Taiwan in the event of a conflict almost always return to the question of the historical case for Taiwan's sovereignty, which is why we believe it fitting to share these articles here. Many of the arguments that appear in these three articles also appear again and again in the debate over whether Taiwan has a right to UN membership.