Skip to comments.'Two-China' policy pursued in '60s
Posted on 12/24/2003 4:59:46 PM PST by maui_hawaii
Japan pursued a de facto "two-China" policy recognizing both China and Taiwan while officially maintaining a one-China policy, according to declassified diplomatic documents released Wednesday.
A December 1964 document quotes Prime Minister Eisaku Sato as conveying this position to British Ambassador Francis Rundall.
"The Japanese government has been saying that there is only 'one China,' but we are simply using the words employed by both communist China and Nationalist China," the prime minister said. "In reality, we are aware that there are two governments."
That May, Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ohira told his British counterpart, Richard Butler, that Japan wanted to create a situation in which Taiwan could keep its U.N. seat even after China joined the world body.
"But communist China and Nationalist China are insisting on the idea that there is only one China," Ohira said.
The British foreign secretary responded by saying Britain was also convinced that Taiwan should remain a separate entity from communist China, although he wanted this view to be kept secret.
Butler insisted that to do so, it would be necessary for the Nationalist government in Taiwan to abandon the idea that it was the true ruler of all China. Britain recognized China in 1950.
Ohira, who later became prime minister, said Japan, in the final analysis, agreed with that view, but it would be premature to announce it as government policy.
Japan in 1952 signed a peace treaty with the Nationalist government, which fled to Taiwan in 1949. In 1972, Japan recognized Beijing and severed ties with Taipei.
That is NOT referring to China's claim over Taiwan, but Taiwan's claims over the Mainland...
In a way it is also very much so a relic of the Cold War.
They are. But when they do you tell them to shut up and that they are causing problems.
Our original mistake going back to the post WWII period was basing policy related to Taiwan on what two despotic regimes said.
That we have not altered it after 50 years is a tetamont to the inertia and incompetence of the foreign affairs elite.
Historical precedence is much larger than that.
Just because Howard Dean says something doesn't make it precedence.
We have to look beyond the office of Chen Shui Bian to see what is really going on and decipher politics from facts. Its bigger than him or his party.
Many KMT even want to change the name to Taiwan KMT.
Lee Teng-hui began this and he was KMT chairman after Chiang Ching-kuo's death and the first elected President.
KMT under Lien Chan now also want UN membership and recognition as a nation, just as the DPP and Chen do.
If Lien wins the issue will be the same. It is the popular will and no candidate will win who isn't pro-Taiwan as a recognized and accepted independent nation.
It relates to simple things such as being able to wave their countries flag at the Olympics and being able to send their president to APEC, being in the WHO, not having Beijing meddle with international relief in the case of earthquakes, being able to go to consulates and embassies rather than makeshift travel agencies or institutes etc...
Whether Taiwan is part of China or not is secondary and not really the issue.
If they persist, I can see a potential policy change.
The US supports Taiwan being in the WHO and other like minded organizations. 10 years ago that would be unthinkable.
Its shifted over time.
I think Taiwan's shift to independence will have to be gradual. Bit by bit...and that is happening now.
And it correlates exactly with the arrival of full democracy and free speech.
Before that people were arrested exiled and even killed for saying Taiwan should be independent.