Former US official says Taiwan should strive for good relations with Japan

Former US official says Taiwan should strive for good relations with Japan

Former Deputy Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs under the Bush Administration Randy Schriver spoke at a recent discussion hosted by The Heritage Foundation focused on the future relations between the United States and Taiwan. He said that “support for eventual independence (in Taiwan) is increasing, while support for unification with China is decreasing.” This has allowed the U.S. to provide support to Taiwan in the military and security aspect, at the same time frustrating China’s hopes for unification.

But, perhaps the most notable part of Schriver’s speech is putting into light Taiwan’s relationship with Japan. “Taiwan should be working positively with Tokyo and trying to improve that relationship, not cause any damage or any rifts,” he said. He recognized that Taiwan may be at a difficult position whereby the nation is torn between “its most important economic partner, China, and its most important security partner, the U.S.–Japan alliance.” He doubled on the part about adding “Japan” as security partner because he says that the U.S. will not be able to fulfill its obligations under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act without its alliance with Japan—which is basically to ensure that the security, or social or economic systems, of the people in Taiwan will not be placed at risk.

Schriver called on Taiwan not to perform acts that would appear as if they are in collusion with China, specifically regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands issue. Japan, he said, is arguably Taiwan’s second most important security partner; although he believes that the U.S. and Japan is a unit when it comes to security in Asia. “If Taiwan undertakes activities that cause problems with Tokyo, that will cause problems with the United States, and that should be avoided.”

[via The Foundry]
Share Button
DISCUSS IT
Comment Policy : Our comments section is open and welcome to anyone who wishes to participate in discussion or share their point of view, regardless of what it may be. In order to limit spam and those who wish to impede meaningful conversation, we are now requiring users to log in with an account or verify their email address. However, the following behavior will result in your comment being deleted or, if continued, permanent removal from conversations: posting under multiple names, making hateful/racist comments, or making no valuable contribution by posting the same thing repeatedly.
  • PeterAnthony

    US should keep his mouth shut as it is none his business to interfere Taiwan policy. Also this former US official cannot repersent US government direction. In fact, Japan shoiuld show his sincere to Taiwan rather than using water gun damaging the Taiwan vessel.

    • Guest

      I consider those Taiwanese were very lucky, they might have been killed if they were entering the Russia water or might have been being beaten if entered Korea water.

      • PeterAnthony

        Even worse is Japan is using extra force to Taiwan vessel on Taiwan territory. What happen if trully enter to JP water, they might use FR-15 or submarine.

  • Truth

    Funnily enough, most Taiwanese have very good opinions of the Japanese and relationships with them because of the good influence of the Japanese era; and the extremely negative experience of the “White Terror” era when the Chinese invaded it, drove it backwards in time by decades, froze its development and robbed many of its assets.

    Many speak Japanese, appreciate Japan and the island the island welcomes Japanese people. I have seen and experienced this myself.

    In a way, the Taiwan and the Taiwanese are far more like real or traditional China. A China that has not suffered from the excess of the Communist Party. It also reminds one of the more rural Japan 40 years ago.

    I recommend going there for a holiday.

    • PeterAnthony

      What so funny if Japan does not show sinerce to Taiwan. The islands belongs to Taiwan and even the Presedent Ma requested the return of the islands. Many speak Japanese, but majority speak Chinease and you should experience Chinese culture when you visist there. It is no longer under Japanese influence anymore.

      • Truth

        Are we going to get into an argument about how Taiwan really belongs to China too?

        What’s more of a shame is that it is increasinly difficult to meet real Taiwanese and experience real Taiwanese culture, but I have no problem with the Chinese on Taiwan.

        Unfortunately, that is the way of the world today. All the old regional differences are dying out. At least Taiwan didn’t have its religion beaten out of it in the same way the mainland did so many more of the old cultures are still alive and free from the totalitarian control of the CPC.

        • PeterAntony

          It is shameful that you want Taiwan be part of Japan. Taiwan is part of China and you cannot agure on this fact. They will be united in future as they are in Chinese. Shame on you and you are trying to create conflict Taiwan and China to avoid against Japan. No Taiwanwese want Japan come back as Abe saying Japan is coming back. Dont’ you konw Taiwan is closer to China than Japan in terms of trading and political trend. Your thought is like the extreme right Japanese which is no more market nowdays. Update your mind and change your thought. Don’t be stupid to make nonsense.

          • Truth

            Like most educated people, I support the Taiwanese people’s desire for political independence and full recognition as a sovereign state.

            The Taiwanese struggle for independence has been going on since C17th and, funnily enough, was supported by Mao Zedong.

            It’s about time the world stop bowing down in fear to the PRC bully state, and its threats of war, and the PRC got over its ridiculous concepts of ownership based on ancient Imperial history. Imperial history that in the same breath the CPC criticized. China demanded from its tributaries but rarely invested or gave anything in return.

            It has to learn that history changes and it cannot rewind back to its imaginary golden age when most of its citizens were essentially fearful slaves.

            I have nothing against the Minnan poor either, although they are not the real Taiwanese. They first left China because of persecution and instability there but it was actually the Dutch who encouraged mass Chinese immigration from Fujian (where the snakehead gangs come from), to the island around that same time.

            It has since been swamped in the same way Japan would have been if it had not had strict immigration laws. Both the Taiwanese and Minnan suffered far worse under the KMT and for no benefit. Overall, they lost advantages the Japanese had brought to the island and suffered greatly, especially during the White Terror era.

            Why should they be forced to be subjects to the PRC as a country now?

            The people who make up Taiwan now hated and suffered under the Communists so much they left China, the monks, the intellectuals, the businessmen the Maoist would have slaughtered.

            Under international law, Taiwan satisfies all the requirement for independence.

            Why should it bow to the Han terrorist state that makes a business out of ignoring international law?

            The so called Communists are just after the capitalist wealth of Taiwanese labor, the wealth hardworking Taiwanese built up having thrown off or escaped the crushing weight of Maoism.

            It has a wonderful culture of its own and maintains far more of ‘Old China’ that Beijing does thanks to avoiding Mao’s genocides and slaughters.

          • PeterAnthony

            I think you are getting out of the points. The islands belongs to Taiwan and it is nothing to do with Japanese. Return them to Taiwan immediately and stop bulling to Taiwan people. Go to Japan and request not to heading to wrong direction.

          • Truth

            We’ve covered this. Japan legally acquired the Senkaku Island according to the procedures set down by International Law in 1895. There is no evidence to suggest they were Taiwanese before that.

            Of course, to slightly complicate the issue, Japan had also legally acquired Taiwan by international treaty from that time until 1945, strengthening its case, as it was a Japanese colony.

            Japan handed over sovereignty of Taiwan to the Taiwanese people recognize Taiwan’s right to independence and self-sovereignty.

            I, like most thinking, educated people in the world, agree with that. Why should the CPC benefit from all the hard work of the Taiwanese people to build up such a strong economy, and why should they risk violence suppression and corruption from the CPC government?

            I suppose you think the PLA should invade Taiwan and turn it back into a colony again just because it once fell under the protection racket of some despotic Chinese Emperor hundreds of years ago?

            It is not “right wing” to consider that China should ditch its self-obsessed medieval myths and lawfully join the modern world.

            * A “protection racket” is an extortion scheme whereby a criminal group or individual forces a victim to pay money, supposedly for protection services against violence or property damage. In most cases, the racketeers do not actually protect their client from anything but the racketeers themselves.

            Japan suffer a great deal to kick the Western protection rackets out of Asia, why should they be replaced with a Han Chinese one?

          • PeterAnthony

            You are lying again. The islands belongs to Taiwan and accoring to the Potsdam Delcaration in 1945, it must return to Taiwan and US kept them and gave JP for administration only. It is time to return to Taiwan people. No more excuse and hope your education is not in falsewood.

          • Truth

            Again, it’s a legal question.

            There is no evidence that shows that the Allied powers or China recognized that the Senkaku Islands were included in those declarations. There words were “the islands appertaining to Formosa” and had nothing to do with China.

            Let me repeat that … no evidence.

            Legally, neither the Potsdam Declaration nor the the Cairo Declaration before it had the ultimate legal validity on the treatment of Japan’s territory whereas the San Francisco Peace Treaty did and legally defined the territory of Japan after the war.

            If you have evidence, state it and take the case to the court which decides in such matters.

            Are you another one who secretly believes that Taiwan belongs to China?

          • Truth

            (When the San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded, and the Senkaku Islands were determined as Japanese territory, none of the major powers concerned including the both Chinas, the ROC and the PRC, raised objections.

            In the PRC People’s Daily newspaper, the government published an article entitles “The Battle of the People in Ryukyu Islands against U.S. Occupation,” (1/8/1953). China criticized the United States for occupying the Ryukyu Islands, which were not decided in either the Cairo Declaration or the Potsdam Declaration, stating that the Ryukyu Islands comprised of seven groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands.

            Just as with the maps it published into the 1960s, the CPC/PRC recognized that the Senkaku Islands were part of the Ryukyu Islands and hence Japan.

            Why did it change? Oh, yes … I forgot! In Autumn 1968, the UN discovered there were gas and oil deposits in the region.

            Strange coincidence that … I suppose the CPC/PRC want to take them to establish world peace and human rights just like the Chinese people don’t have.

          • PeterAnthony

            You are stilling lying and Taiwan or China did not signed the San Francise Treaty. That means it is not valid to Taiwan to claim the islands. All above you said are garbage. Please go to do more research before making any comment. Are you the one hiring yourself from the extreme right Japanese and trying to steal the islands. Be true and repent!

          • Truth

            彼得, at the Japan-China Summit Meeting in 1972 Prime Minister Tanaka asked Zhou Enlai,

            “What is your view on the Senkaku Islands? Some people say things about them to me.”

            Premier Zhou answered: “I do not want to talk about the Senkaku Islands this time. It is not good to to discuss this now.

            It became an issue because of the oil out there. If there wasn’t oil, neither Taiwan nor the United States would make this an issue.”

            Personally, I have no interest in party politics. I am interest in history and law because even politics must follow the law (I appreciate that is an unusual idea for a Chinese person but it is true).

            However, if you were to ask me, “did I agree with the 7 Point Manifesto of New Komeito (Japanese Communist Party)?” I would say I agree with every one of them.

            http://www.komei.or.jp/en/news/detail/20121118_9687

            I suppose that might me a communist sympathizer in Japanese terms, but not in Chinese terms. I no longer consider China follows communism any more. It is some kind of new imperial capitalism where the Emperors have been replace by high ranking CPC members and their family’s like Zhang Shuguang, Liu Zhijun and Wen Jiabao who despite making literally billions of dollars off the Chinese workers, squirrel it away overseas.

            Perhaps if they all had not stolen the money from the Chinese people, China could have been able to simply buy the islands.

            There is no point screaming “liar”, “thief” and “extreme Right” at me … the law is the law and legally the Senkaku Islands are Japanese. Japan acquired them legally. Their acquisition has nothing to do with WWII nor even the Sino-Japanese war. It is an entirely separate issue and the only place to resolve them is the International Court of Justice.

            Why does China refuse to accept the authority of the ICJ and take the dispute there but instead provokes Japan with gun boat diplomacy?

          • -observer-

            What are you talking about its JP that wont go to the ICJ as they dont even recognise a dispute. Why doesnt JP have any evidence or maps showing those island prior to 1895? Wait they were Ryukyu maps derived from the Chinese.

          • Whirled Peas

            Japan isn’t the party disputing ownership, China is the disputant. And it doesn’t matter one iota if Japan says there is no dispute. If China thinks it has a case, it has the right to gather all its evidence (maps, poems, etc.) and challenge Japan in the International Court of Justice. But I see where you are confused.

            China claims former PM Noda said Japan refuses to use the ICJ. But in fact, what Noda said was Japanwould not initiate proceedings because Japan is not the one disputing ownership of the islands. Japan already has effective control. So with that little misunderstanding cleared up China should rejoice and file an application to the ICJ right away. WP

          • Truth

            It’s amazing how, despite how many time these people are patiently explained the law, they still don’t get it.

            It is a procedure issue people.

            If you think I have stolen your bike, you don’t run after me telling to me take myself to the court. You go to the police and take me to court.

            Do you understand now?

            I did not steal the bicycle. I found it unused in the middle of nowhere with no name on it. I watched it for 10 years and no one came to get it. I put an advert in the newspaper and no one claimed it. Therefore I legally claimed it as mine.

            Now you come along 70 years later just because the bicycle is worth a lot of money now and claim it is your.

            How can it be yours?

            The bicycle was made before you were even born.

          • PeterAnthony

            You must have problem with your thought. The islands belongs to China and Taiwan. JP stole the islands and claim on its own and saying it is legal. No wonder everyone saying JP is acting like a thielf just as like you a thief. If you go to the court anywhere, you must lost. Don’t be a fool and be smart.

          • Truth

            No, Japan acquired the Senkaku legally by painstakingly following international law over a period of 10 years before it was sure it could claim the terra nullius.

            During such time, it found no evidence of occupation or prior ownership, published notes of its intentions and receive no opposition until, as Deng Xiaoping admitted, gas was found in the Japanese EEZ.

            This is not China. Your brainwash will not work in the free world.

            CPC seeks to control the hydrocarbon reserves and take the islands for their military strategic value which endangers Japan.

            Taiwan is an independent country over which the CPC has no sovereign rights and most certainly does not talk for.

          • PeterAnthony

            Now you are showing like a thief for JP trying to tell they can claim the islands for over 10 years control. Your thought is acing like an extreme right wing JP giving false evidence and trying to fool the world. It is lucky to see JP is no more under control and China enters freely. JP can do nothing.

          • PeterAnthony

            You must be misunderstanding the true ownship. JP does not have the ownership but ony administration power only. Even US decline this with JP. The ownship is belong to Taiwan and China and nothing to do with JP even JP is effective control in the past but not any more today. How can you say JP is still control the islands. Now China & Taiwan can enter the islands terrritory freely. Please do not make any false statement.

          • Truth

            No, Japan has sovereignty over the island according to International Law.

            It would be wrong to misinterpret Japan’s tolerance and restraint as weakness. Legally, China is damaging its own legal case by acting illegally and aggressively.

            Can you not gather Sea Lavender somewhere else? Are the Senkakus the only place to find it?

          • PeterAnthony

            You shoud know US only admit JP got the administrative power on the islandsa and never say it is own by JP. In other words, you are making false statement again. Are you one of the extreme right JP member trying to fool around the world. Be honest in order to gain respect and hope you can learn this.

          • Whirled Peas

            When planning was taking place for the Okinawa Reversion Treaty (1972) the US intended to restore the entire Okinawa Islands back to Japanese sovereignty (or at least “residual sovereignty” — meaning US reserved the right to use some of the land if need be). Included in the territory to be returned were the Senkakus. But two things acted to alter that plan

            1. Former President Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and some forces in the US wanted to NORMALIZE relations with China. Not everyone was in that camp. Some government officials and some of the US public wanted US to continue to have state to state relations with the ROC . So Nixon had work to quickly to seal a deal with China and did not want anything to interfere with plans to start negotiation with PRC in the year 1972.

            2. OIL was discovered near the Senkakus in 1968, and soon forces in the PRC, Taiwan, and pro-PRC folks in Hong Kong went to work feverishly to build a case for Chinese ownership of the islands. In the US the Hong Kong student-intellectuals worked around the clock charting where the oil was found and studying books and magazines to find anything that could be used as evidence that China once owned the islands. They even formed study groups to debate the issue and create a plausible narrative.There was a lot of excitement on campuses and in the overseas Chinese communities as they told each other that the oil might belong to China! In May 1971, knowing that the Okinawa Reversion was going to take place in 1972, Diaoyu activists petitioned President Nixon and Congress to refrain from returning the Senkakus over to Japan when the US reverted the rest of the Okinawa Islands.

            Now, President Nixon was not a professional Asian historian, and he and Congress had neither time nor inclination to study or commission a study on the intricacies of China’s surprising claim to the Senkakus — 70 years after Japan legally claimed them. Nixon’s main concern was that no emergent issue interfere with upcoming talks with China. Accordingly, Nixon and Congress made the pragmatic (but in my opinion short-sighted) decision to make nice with the Diaoyu activists at the expense of Japan. He and Congress decided that the US should take no position on sovereignty, but Japan would still be given clear “administrative control” over the islands by 1972. To Nixon, these measures would keep China quiet and Japan sufficiently puzzled until he could accomplish his goal of initiating relations with the PRC. So you see folks the US decision to give Japan just “administrative control” was based purely on the pragmatics of the moment, not based on any thoughtful examination of various past treaties, maps, poems, etc. And today that hasty decision has come back to cause a great deal of confusion. At a different moment in history Nixon might have said something like: “As planned, we’re returning ALL of Okinawa to Japan and they have residual sovereignty over ALL of them. But China is more than welcome to contest the Senkakus in the International Court of Justice.”

            Does the fact Japan was given “administrative control” rather than sovereignty over the Senkakus make any practical difference to the outcome of this issue. I don’t think so because as the administrator of Senkaku, Japan still has the right to defend the islands from trespass (thought Japan has used great restraint); plus, the Senkakus are included in the US-Japan Security Treaty. IMO, the status of “administrative control” versus “sovereignty” is a distinction without a difference. WP

          • PeterAnthony

            You are going to invalid point as I said before the SanFrancisco Treaty or the Okinawa Reversion Treaty is no applied to China or Taiwan as they did not signed or agreed on this . It is no point for JP like you still using this point for discussion.

          • Whirled Peas

            I was giving you the history of why the US decided to grant only “administrative control” over the Senkakus while restoring sovereignty over the rest of Okinawa. You had claimed that the US admits that Japan has only administrative power and doesn’t own it. No. the US admits nothing. Nixon and Congress decided to take a neutral stance because the US was about to establish state to state relations with China.

          • PeterAnthony

            You are just using false document to fool around the world. The Okinawa Reversion Treaty (1972) was not agreed with China or Taiwan. Then the ownership of the islands belongs to China or Taiwan. So they have authority to go freely there and is not violate any laws. Even Japan got administrative control will not apply to China or Taiwan as they are the owner. Even US did not deny this. Please do not use false comment. How can a defeat JP can get the reward of islands after WWII.

          • Whirled Peas

            “The Allies are not fighting Japan for their
            own territorial expansion.

            It’s interesting that PRC keeps trying to harken back to the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Terms of Surrender for proof that the Senkakus belong to PRC PRC wasn’t even a polity in 1943 or 1945, and it was still not a settled question whether PRC or ROC should represent China in 1952. Though PRC and ROC weren’t present at the SF Treaty Japan was required to renounce all land acquired in recent conflicts with China, in keeping with the spirit of Cairo and Potsdam.

          • Whirles Peas

            Here’s a complete version of my last post. Some kind of glitch happened.

            The Senkakus were not a REWARD given to Japan after WWII. . They were
            Japanese property acquired legally by international law before WWII
            and so were restored to Japan after the occupation ended. That makes
            sense if one would accept the intent of the Cairo Declaration (1943)
            embodied in the clause:

            -”The Allies are not fighting Japan for their own territorial expansion.”

            It’s interesting that PRC keeps trying to harken back to the Cairo
            Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Terms of Surrender for proof that the
            Senkakus belong to PRC. PRC wasn’t even a polity in 1943 or 1945, and
            it was still not a settled question whether PRC or ROC should represent
            China in 1952. Though PRC and ROC weren’t present at the SF Treaty Japan was required to renounce all land acquired in recent conflicts with China, in keeping with the spirit of Cairo and Potsdam.

            The fact that PRC and ROC didn’t sign the Okinawa Reversion has nothing to do with the question of who owns the Senkakus. The Okinawa Reversion Treaty was an agreement between the US (as occupier) and Japan on the timetable and logistic and liabilities of transferral of land back to Japan. It was not the arena to debate a territorial issue that had just recently surfaced. The venue for PRC and ROC to dispute Senkakus was and is still in the International Court of Justice.

            PRC and ROC could have launched a court case with ICJ any time before the Okinawa Reversion was in the making (1969) and came into effect (1972) if they thought the Senkakus should have not have been occupied as a part of Okinawa. And they still have the right to file a court case.

          • PeterAnthony

            You have logic problem. San Francisco Treaty did not signed or agreed by China or Taiwan. That means JP claim is invalid on the islands as it is belongs to China/Taiwan. Your evidence is false.

          • Truth

            Precisely. There were two Chinese governments and just which one was the legitimate government was in dispute. In short, there was no legitimate China or Tawian to sign, you idiot.

            Japan’s sovereignty was legally established in 1895.

            I am sorry, China is not the center of the world, the world cannot wait on it to sort its internal problems out and the world is embracing democracy, human rights and the rule of law, including international law.

            When PRC is ready to join us, it will be welcomed.

          • PeterAnthony

            No woder you are unable to clarify SF treaty you so insisted. Now you go back to1895. Too late. China can occupy the islands to get back the ownership and JP has no reason to object. JP is so eager to own these because of the oil reserve.

  • Tacoma

    Most China lover Taiwanese are living in US, Canada and China. How funy it is.