Author: Chairman rabbit source: tuzhuxi (ID: Chairman rabbit)
1? The three communiqu é s and other historical acts and documents
1. The first joint communique: the Shanghai Communique of February 28, 1972, see above:
The Taiwan issue and Sino US Relations (1) the one China principle vs the one China Policy
?
2. The second joint communique: the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States on December 16, 1978
Six years after the first communique was issued, on December 16, 1978, China and the United States issued the joint communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the people’s Republic of China and the United States of America. The US side was signed by President Carter.
The communique announced that the United States and the people’s Republic of China will establish formal diplomatic relations from January 1, 1979, and will exchange ambassadors and establish Embassies from March 1, 1979. The communique also reaffirmed the principles of the Shanghai Communique signed by the two sides in 1971.
On the day when the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States was released, Carter announced that the United States would terminate its diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (ROC / KMT Taiwan). In addition, Carter also announced the withdrawal of all US troops stationed in Taiwan from the Republic of China (ROC / KMT Taiwan), and announced the invalidation of the Sino US Mutual Defense Treaty (samdt) signed with ROC (since the treaty stipulates a one-year notification period, it was lifted on January 1, 1980, one year after the formal establishment of diplomatic relations between China (PRC) and the United States).
The communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States was published before Deng Xiaoping (then Vice Premier of the State Council) visited the United States. This Communique is a historical milestone in Sino US relations, further strengthening the legitimacy of the people’s Republic of China (PRC) in the international arena, and is a major diplomatic victory. It was another major blow to KMT Taiwan / ROC.
On the Taiwan issue, the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States seems to have taken another step forward, but it has laid a major “foreshadowing” for important differences between China and the United States in the future.
Therefore, we need to look back at the relevant contents and statements in the communique.
English version:
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/communique02.htm
Chinese version:
http://www.gov.cn/ztzl/zmbh/content_624348.htm
1) The first small point of the text of the communique:
The people’s Republic of China and the United States of America have agreed to recognize each other and establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979.
English version: the United States of America and the people’s Republic of China have agreed to recognize each other to establish differential relations as of January 1, 1979.
Interpretation: the PRC and the US government officially “recognize” each other and will establish diplomatic relations. I have highlighted the word “recognize”. Discussed further below.
2) The second small point in the text of the communique:
“The United States of America recognizes the government of the people’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. Within this scope, the American people will maintain cultural, commercial and other non official relations with the people of Taiwan.”
English version: “the United States of America recognizes the government of the people’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.”
Interpretation:
In the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the US side only stated: “the United States recognizes that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait believe that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China”. At that time, China and the United States were entering the path of normalization of diplomatic relations. The United States only said that people on both sides of the Strait believed that there was only one “China” and that Taiwan was a part of “China” (the propositions put forward by the PRC and ROC at that time were “mirror images” and “symmetrical”), but it did not formally accept and recognize that the PRC was the representative of “China”. It should be remembered that: a) the United States and the Republic of China on Taiwan still maintain a mutual defense treaty; b) The United States has not officially established diplomatic relations with the PRC; c) In 1971, the United States voted against the Resolution 2758 of the United Nations recognizing the PRC as the sole legal government representing China.
The communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States has solved the above-mentioned problems: the United States has officially recognized the official status of the people’s Republic of China (PRC) as the representative of “China”, and at the same time wants to suspend its existing relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. All this is also a prerequisite for the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States. However, in the communique, the US side clearly proposed to maintain cultural, commercial and other non official relations with the people of Taiwan.
3) The third point in the text of the communique:
Chinese version: “the people’s Republic of China and the United States of America reaffirm the principles agreed upon by both sides in the Shanghai Communique…”
English version: “the United States of America and the people’s Republic of China realize the principlesagreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Community…”
Interpretation:
It is a continuation of the Shanghai Communique. However, for the avoidance of ambiguity, it should also be noted that in the Shanghai Communique, both China and the United States clearly stated that what the two sides agreed – whether it is an abstract principle or a specific content – is even agreed, but it does not include that the two sides only expressed themselves, did not reach an agreement, or even specifically left ambiguous places.
4) The seventh key point in the text of the communique
Chinese version: “the government of the United States of America recognizes China’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China.”
English version: “the government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”
Interpretation:
a) “China”, “Chinese”
First, the concept used by both parties is “China”. In my last article, I analyzed the definition of “China”. In China, there are slight differences in the understanding and cognition between China and the United States.
China’s understanding and perspective: “the one China principle”. Because of language and cultural reasons, Chinese people’s understanding is usually conceptual and abstract. Therefore, I try to use more rigorous words to express the logic of the Chinese side:
——There is only one government in the world that can legitimately represent “China”, a historical country, at home and abroad, and undertake all the status, rights, responsibilities and obligations of “China” internationally;
——Since the United States has recognized the people’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal representative of “China”, it has recognized the proposition that the PRC is the only “China” in the world, and it will accept that the PRC becomes the “successor State” of the ROC in international law / diplomacy
——In addition, PRC and China have also “merged into one”: the position of the people’s Republic of China = the position of China
——As long as the United States recognizes that Taiwan is a part of “China” (nation / country), logically, it is equivalent to recognizing the sovereignty of the PRC (as the government representing China) over Taiwan.
The understanding and perspective of the US side are different from that of the Chinese side. As for the interpretation of this issue, the US side’s perspective does not break through the Shanghai Communique:
——The Shanghai Communique of the United States States States: “the United States sacknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
——The government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China
In China’s perspective or interpretation, “the position of the people’s Republic of China” = “China’s position”;
In the perspective or interpretation of the US side, “Chinese position” can also refer to the position of “Chinese people”, that is, the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait (the Americans believe that regardless of their political stance and propositions, the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are “Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait” — the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait); If the position of the people’s Republic of China / PRC is to be clearly stated, the more precise expression is “the position of the government of China” or the position of PRC. The US side always wants to be vague and retain the principle of “strategic ambiguity” or “constructive ambiguity”. Why should I be vague? The core purpose is to leave more space and leeway for ourselves, so that we can avoid responsibility one day. In other words, to whom should the US government evade its responsibility when signing the joint communique? The answer is that the White House is the representative of the US government, and they should avoid responsibility to the US Congress; Avoid responsibility to the Supreme Court; We should avoid responsibility to the domestic voters; We should avoid responsibility for the potential strategic partner of the Kuomintang in Taiwan; Even, we should avoid responsibility for history.
On this issue, the Chinese side has actually accepted the vague statement because it does not hinder the logical closed loop of the “one China principle”. However, as for the next issue, which is the core issue, China believes that it must be clarified.
b) Is the US position on China “recognized” or “known”?
On the surface, this issue is a written expression, but it has become the most crucial issue in Sino US relations and the Taiwan issue.
First, let’s review it. In the Chinese version of the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, the words are:
“The government of the United States of America recognizes China’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China”.
Recognition means acceptance and approval. In such an important diplomatic text between countries, “recognition” is a formal expression, which implies formal diplomatic and political rights, obligations, responsibilities and status.
The word “recognition” has entered the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States (and the subsequent communique on August 17), and has become a diplomatic document with the same legal effect signed and exchanged by the two governments. Therefore, it has become the core of our recognition and understanding of the attitude of the United States.
Today, this expression can also be found in all our official expressions.
For example, in the white paper on the Taiwan issue and the cause of China’s reunification in the new era issued by the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council in August 2022:
“The communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States issued in December 1978 stated that” the government of the United States of America recognizes China’s position, that is, there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China “.
However, it should also be noted that the English version of the official white paper reflects the expression of the English version:
“The China-US Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, published in December 1978, states: “The Government of the United States of Americaacknowledgesthe Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”?The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era?
https://english.news.cn/20220810/df9d3b8702154b34bbf1d451b99bf64a/c.html
“Acknowledge” appears in the English version and is a word officially recognized and used by the US government. The US side believes that acknowledge means “know”, “understand” and “recognize”, but not “recognize” or “accept”.
If we want to re translate this sentence (“the government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”) from the perspective of the US side, it will become:
“The government of the United States of America understands (or recognizes) China’s position on ‘there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China’.” (Chinese version of the US government).
The problem is; Both the Chinese and English versions of the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States are diplomatic documents signed and exchanged by the two governments, which have the same legal effect. This issue of “recognition” versus “knowing” has become an unavoidable core conceptual difference between China and the United States on the Taiwan issue. This paper aims to further explore the origin and significance of this divergence.
a) First, we will compare the Chinese and English versions of the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States.
In the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, there are three times of “recognition” in Chinese. We will also list the English version in comparison.
i) The people’s Republic of China and the United States of America have agreed to recognize each other and establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979. ?The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China have agreed to recognize each other and to establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979?
II) the United States of America recognizes the government of the people’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. In this context, the American people will maintain cultural, commercial and other non official relations with the people of Taiwan. ?The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.
III) the government of the United States of America recognizes China’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China. ?The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China?
The first two Chinese words “recognize” correspond to “recognize” in English; “Recognize” is a formal diplomatic term, which means “recognize”. We say that the word “recognize” is used to recognize or not recognize a country diplomatically. Diplomatic recognition means diplomatic recognition; “Unrecognized government / country” is called “unrecognized state”.
Therefore, there is no problem that “recognize” corresponds to “acknowledge”.
There is only the third Chinese “acknowledge”, which corresponds to the English “acknowledge”.
b) By vertical comparison, we can see the Shanghai Communique and the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States:
The words of the Shanghai Communiqu é in 1972:
——”The US side declares that the United States recognizes that all Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait believe that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China. The US government has no objection to this position.
——“The US side declared: The United Statesacknowledgesthat all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.
It can be seen that in the two joint communiques, the wording of the US side on this issue has not been adjusted, and they are all “acknowledge”; The Chinese side’s expression has changed from “recognition” in the Shanghai Communique to “recognition” in the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States.
In the Chinese text, there has been a conceptual breakthrough.
c) Does “acknowledge” mean “acknowledge”? Can you translate it this way?
The earliest record of the word “acknowledge” was in 1533, which is a combination of Middle English knowlechen (discovery, disclosure, recognition) and aknowen (recognition, recognition); Aknowen (from Old English) ? cn ? Wan (recognize, know, acknowledge), etc.
Looking up authoritative English dictionaries such as Oxford and Merriam Webster, we find that acknowledge has a broad meaning, which includes seeing, recognizing, recognizing and accepting:
——to accept or admit the existence or truth of?Oxford?
——to recognize the rights, authority, or status of? to disclose knowledge of or agreement with?Merriam-Webster?
——to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of:?Dictionary.com?
——to admit the knowledge of; to recognize as a fact or truth; to declare one’s belief in?Wiktionary?
It is possible to translate a single English text into “accept” or “acknowledge”. However, considering that recognize is a very formal diplomatic term, which has appeared twice in the same text, the concept of acknowledge is relatively broad, and diplomatic or legal language / wording should be precise, so if you are engaged in translation, you need to understand the exact intention of the other party in order to express accurately and avoid ambiguity.
First, I will refer to the context. For example, recognize is used in the United States and acknowledge is used here. Why is there such a difference? Does the other party have any special intention or consideration;
Second, I will refer to the expressions in previous documents, such as the Shanghai Communique six years ago. How is the same expression worded;
Third, the concept of “symmetry”: on the one hand, I should consider what Chinese I should translate when I see the English word “acknowledge”; Second, if I see the Chinese word “recognition”, I should translate it into English, turn it over and back, and it should be symmetrical;
Fourth, since this is a formal diplomatic / legal document, the two governments should sign and exchange letters. The text should be completely symmetrical. Both sides should see the accuracy of the other’s words. Therefore, it can not be said that who “translated” whose text, but that both sides jointly formed a text that can be recognized by each other.
Drafting and confirming the text is not translation; The drafting and confirmation of the text is itself part of the negotiations. This must be clear.
However, from the above, it can be seen that in the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States in 1978, the Chinese version used “recognition” to correspond to “acknowledge”, which helped China achieve an important conceptual breakthrough on the core issue of “whether Taiwan belongs to China”, and reduced the space for the United States to play with “strategic ambiguity”. We will discuss this issue further later.
d) How was the text of the Sino US communique handled?
Look at the August 17 Communique signed by China and the United States in 1982. Relevant statements are as follows:
Chinese version:
——In the joint communique issued by the government of the people’s Republic of China and the government of the United States of America on the establishment of diplomatic relations on January 1, 1979, the United States of America recognized the government of the people’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China and recognized China’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China; ?In the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations on January 1, 1979, issued by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the United States of Americarecognizedthe Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, and itacknowledgedthe Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China?
——In consideration of the above statements made by both sides, the US government declares that it does not seek to implement a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan. The performance and quantity of arms it sells to Taiwan will not exceed the level of supply in recent years after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States. It is prepared to gradually reduce its arms sales to Taiwan and lead to a final settlement after a period of time. In making such a statement, the United States recognizes China’s consistent position recognizing the rough settlement of this issue
It can be seen that both the Chinese and English versions of the 17 August communique have adopted the wording of the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States. At the same time, on the issue of US arms sales to Taiwan, the “August 17 Communique” once again translated the “acknowledge” of the US side into “recognition”. It is estimated that this is also a continuation of the tradition of translation. The asymmetry between Chinese and English texts and the conceptual breakthrough achieved by Chinese texts have been preserved. Of course, this asymmetry has become the source of differences as China and the United States have become hostile to each other.
In any case, in the future, when it comes to the discussion on whether Taiwan is a part of China, all Chinese official statements and references to historical texts think that the United States has “recognized” China’s position in history.
The word “acknowledge” has a very wide meaning in English, and indeed contains the meaning of “admit” and “accept”. With the evolution of time, the heads of government and officials of the United States have also formed cognitive differences. To put it bluntly, the “strategic ambiguity” that the US side intends to keep is not only “fooling” its opponents, but also “fooling” its own people.
Since many of the parties involved have died. However, the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States is an important document officially approved by the Chinese and American governments. Therefore, unless new documents appear, future generations can only follow the previous traditions.
3) As for “recognition” or “knowing”, the US side’s subsequent interpretation and clarification of the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States
In the past few decades, the US side, from government officials to academic research institutions, has made a lot of explanations, explicitly denying that the US has “recognized” China’s claims, but only “acknowledged”.
As early as February 22, 1979, Warren Christopher, deputy secretary of state of President Carter, explained at the US Senate hearing that the United States “acknowledged” (meaning “aware”) the Chinese side’s position that Taiwan is a part of China, but the United States did not agree (the original document was emphasized in italics)
( https://nationalinterest.org/feature/donald-trump-has-disrupted-years-broken-taiwan-policy-18609 ?? Warren Christopher said, “we take the English text as the standard. We believe that ‘acknowledge’ is the exact wording that determines US policy.” ?“we regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.??
In all subsequent official wordings, the US government will emphasize that the United States has only “acknowledged” China’s position and proposition that “Taiwan is a part of China”, but has never “recognized” or accepted this proposition. On this issue, the US side believes that its position is consistent and has never changed. Moreover, if the United States was willing to retain more “strategic ambiguity” in order to maintain its relations with Chinese Mainland in the early years, in the past few years, especially in the years when Sino US relations deteriorated sharply after Trump came to power, American politicians were more willing to put this issue on the table and more clearly emphasized that the US government “has never recognized that ‘Taiwan is a part of China'”, Many politicians are even pushing for a “showdown” against China, subverting the “one China” and cross-strait policies maintained by the United States over the past few decades.
4) Back in history, how was the text established at that time?
Here, we can refer to the statement of the US party first, and then review and explain it from the perspective of China. Harvey Feldman (June 25, 1931 – February 24, 2009), a US diplomat, was the last “Office of the Republic of China Affairs” of the US Department of state before the US severed diplomatic ties with the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan. After the severance of diplomatic ties, he was one of the promoters and drafters of the relevant laws on Taiwan relations. In 1999, he talked about this issue in an interview? https://www.adst.org/OH%20TOCs/Feldman ,% 20harvey.toc.pdf69 ~ 70).
Let me translate the text.
Harvey Feldman?
In addition, the United States stated in the communiques on “normalization of relations” and “withdrawal of recognition (to the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan)” that the United States “acknowledged” the people’s Republic of China (PRC) on the proposition that one China and Taiwan are part of China. But this was widely misunderstood – especially by the subsequent White House Administration. When the U.S. said that it acknowledged the PRC’s position, it did not say that it accepted it. These are two completely different policy statements. “Acknowledgement” of the PRC position is a kind of polite expression, which means: “we heard what you said; we know that this is what you want to claim. We will not refute / deny, but we will not make any further statement on our own position (an acknowledgement of the PRC position was a political way of saying:” we hear
you; we understand that this what you claim. We will not contradict it, but we make no statement on our own position.”?? Generally speaking, this statement of the United States should be translated into Chinese in three Chinese characters: “we acknowledge”. China hopes to advance faster. In the Chinese version of the joint communique, they used two Chinese words: “recognized”. This expression is used to recognize a government. When this two character word appeared in the Chinese text, the US Liaison Office in Beijing immediately expressed its disapproval of the Chinese text. At that time, the head of the liaison office was Leonard Woodcock, who was the chairman of the United Auto Workers Union; The deputy director is Stapleton Roy (Rui Xiaojian), who was born and raised in China and can speak Chinese; He spent most of his career doing things related to China. He was fully aware of the difference between the two expressions. Roy should immediately point out that the US side has not accurately translated the Chinese text, but I can say with certainty that he very much hopes to promote the “normalization” of Sino US relations, so he did not point out this important mistranslation. Therefore, in the end, the Chinese version of the communique included the word “recognized”. Since the two versions of the same communique actually talk about different things, it has created endless problems for Sino US relations. The Chinese side uses “recognition” to support the PRC’s proposition of one China, while the English version refers to the PRC’s proposition / idea of “acknowledge” in the United States.
As time goes on, the word “ACK nowledges” has also been misunderstood by different white house government spokesmen themselves, including the current president. From time to time, the Clinton administration would say that the United States “accepted” the PRC’s proposition that “Taiwan is a part of China”. But in fact, from an official point of view, the United States has never “accepted” China’s viewpoint: we only know this viewpoint. ?In fact, officially, the U.S. has never“accepted” the PRC view; we have only “acknowledged” it.?
This is the US perspective. After reading, I thought of the following:
First, Harvey Feldman places the main responsibility on Stapleton Roy, deputy director of the US side. Because he is very clear that the formation of the text itself is a part of the negotiation, and each side definitely hopes that the publication will be implemented in a direction beneficial to itself. When two countries with different languages issue joint communiques, it is definitely necessary to harmonize the language. How the Chinese and English versions are formed is purely a technical issue, and the forms can be varied. For example, if the United States is not at ease, it can first provide the Chinese version of the statement made by the United States, and the Chinese side can put forward its opinions. The Chinese side, in turn, operates symmetrically. The example here is just to illustrate that the process of text formation is not important, but the core is the result, because the two sets of Chinese and English texts are finally formed, and both parties should exchange signatures and jointly recognize, and the documents have the same legal effect. Therefore, both parties should check and be responsible for the final text, and try their best to prevent the text asymmetry that is unfavorable to their own side. In this sense, Harvey Feldman believes that the main responsibility is still on the US side (Stapleton Roy), and has not put forward opinions to the Chinese side;
Second, the word “knowledge” is indeed broad and vague, and indeed includes the meanings of acceptance, recognition and approval. The reason why Americans use this word is that it is vague enough. In the end, even Americans are trapped in it, and they cannot understand the context and meaning of it. Therefore, it needs to be clarified.
Third, the US side has adopted a strategy of “strategic ambiguity” in Sino US relations and the Taiwan issue. It hopes to be as vague and vague as possible, avoid the light and focus on the heavy, and do not express opinions on major issues, so that it can throw the pot, avoid responsibility and jump ship at any time. The Chinese people’s thinking is often macro, abstract and general, and they do not dwell on details. In Promoting Sino US relations, they also know that many things should be “coarse rather than fine”. The granularity should not be too fine, and it depends on time to solve them. However, on the most important and fundamental issues, the Chinese side hopes for clear principles, and does not like the United States’ statements. What does it mean to “know” our position and then not make a statement? Then, do you support or not support it? Do you approve or not? I want you to clarify this question now: is Taiwan a part of China? If you do not recognize that Taiwan is a part of China, how can we establish diplomatic relations? This is an issue that China is most concerned about, and it cannot be ambiguous. Therefore, we hope that the United States will accept the wording of “recognition” and strive to clarify the issue at one time. If you clearly object, we can talk about it again, but if you accept the text, you are deemed to have accepted it.
Fourth, we should see that Sino US relations were indeed developing in a good direction at that time. The Chinese side must be anxious to hope that the US side can clarify this important issue. The US diplomats in charge also really hope that Sino US relations can be normalized as soon as possible. They think that these issues may not really be problems in a few years. In order to avoid trouble, they accept them. People at that time did not know that Sino US relations might develop in a completely different direction in a few decades. They did not know that the understanding asymmetry or differences at that time would gradually evolve into major differences that were difficult to reconcile.
Fifth, the US diplomatic routine is to engage in “strategic ambiguity”; At that time, the Chinese side did not fully understand this strategy, but it would not be satisfied with the US side’s ambiguity in major statements. In the Chinese version of the Sino US construction communique, the Chinese side has promoted the use of the word “recognition” on the most critical issue of the US government’s view of “whether Taiwan belongs to China”, which has important historical value and significance. On the one hand, if we still stick to the wording of “recognize”, it will be difficult for the Chinese government to explain to its citizens and history, and the legitimacy of the political basis for the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States will be weakened. Therefore, China has no choice but to promote the use of the word “recognize”; I believe Stapleton Roy also understands this truth. On the other hand, the use of “recognition” is to force the United States to take a step back, and at the same time, it also buries a “burden”, reducing the space for the United States to manipulate “strategic ambiguity” at home and abroad: no matter how it is said, no matter what the dispute, the United States government is also responsible for this text and its disputes. Finally, if Sino US relations develop in a good direction, this wording will not hurt China, because the United States will eventually have to accept this proposition (“Taiwan is a part of China”); If Sino US relations develop in a bad direction, it can force the United States to “show its cards”, give up “strategic ambiguity” and admit its true position. Therefore, we must not underestimate the power of this small wording. The drafting of the text is also a tit for tat diplomatic battlefield.
5) “Acknowledge” vs “know” — what to do next?
Many people who participated in the negotiations, both on the Chinese side and the US side, have died. Today we may not be able to completely restore the background of some words. However, when evaluating the communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, we must fully integrate and consider the historical background and context of its formation, and cannot evaluate it completely according to today’s perspective and practical needs.
Because China hopes to be clear and the United States hopes to be vague in its strategy, the Chinese side has always insisted on the three Sino US joint communiques, and the United States has to come up with a large number of bills and texts (the Taiwan Relations Act, the “six guarantees” and so on), which even surpasses the three Sino US joint communiques, making Sino US relations difficult on the Taiwan issue.
So what about the future?
What would you do if you said that you never “recognize” Taiwan as a part of China?
My judgment is as follows:
——In the three Sino US joint communiques, there are indeed fundamental conceptual differences between China and the United States on the Taiwan issue. Moreover, we have seen the US side’s statements very clearly since 1979 (there are also the Taiwan Relations Act and the “six guarantees” and so on). We should treat them realistically and should not have any illusions. It turned out that we just avoided the contradiction;
——Since the two sides have major conceptual differences, it is reasonable to issue a new joint communique to clarify the differences. (“if you don’t admit that you admitted it before, let’s talk about it again. Do you admit it or not?”. However, given the current situation of Sino US relations and the true attitude of the United States toward the Taiwan issue, it can be said that it is impossible to sign a new communique. On the contrary, American politicians may be considering when to overturn the three previous communiques;
——The Chinese side condemns the US side for being treacherous to the “three Sino US joint communiques” and is unable to change the US position on the Taiwan issue in reality. Entanglement in the historical formation of these documents can not solve the practical problems, and it should be said that it has little significance. On the contrary, the United States is giving up “strategic ambiguity” and “showdown” with China: it has repeatedly, clearly, frequently and high-profile said that it has never “recognized” Taiwan as a part of China in the three communiques, and has never accepted the people’s Republic of China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, saying that this is the consistent position of the United States;
——To be realistic, this position is indeed the official attitude of the United States. If it was not clear before, it is completely clear now; This position is also the mainstream political / political consensus of the United States. The domestic political environment of the United States is such that China’s pressure on the United States on the cross-strait issue will only make American politicians feel motivated to push the United States further to the opposite side (for example, abolishing the three communiques)
——The history of the Taiwan issue, Sino US relations, and the three Sino US joint communiques is very complicated. The differences between China and the United States are now a public case in the international community. I believe that continuing to condemn the US side internationally for not abiding by its commitments in the three Sino US joint communiques will not help us resolve the Taiwan issue (because it cannot resolve the US issue), nor will it be possible to provide us with more moral points. The third-party countries may now look at it this way: the United States does hate to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, but the United States has this virtue. On the Taiwan issue, we support the “one China principle”. However, it is not good to have armed reunification. Don’t fight, talk in peace… The communiques signed by you and the United States do seem to have some conceptual differences. Now you are saying different things. May I suggest that your two countries sign a new Communique and reach a new understanding? We absolutely support…… the third-party countries are actually neutral and evasive on this issue from the bottom of their hearts.
China’s “one China principle” is a closed-loop and self consistent logic, which is accepted by the vast majority of third-party countries. The problem now is not that of China and the international community, but that of China and the United States.
On the Taiwan issue:
——For the vast majority of third-party countries, it is enough for China to win over or be neutral;
——For a handful of stubborn opponents (the United States), the only way to solve the problem is to use strength.
In the next part, we will take a look at the Taiwan Relations Act, the August 17 Communique, the “six guarantees”, and the logic of the evolution and trend of the US policy toward Taiwan.