by Zhang Tengjun
BEIJING, Aug. 27 (Xinhua) -- The so-called "Taiwan Relations Act" (TRA) unilaterally adopted by Washington in 1979, which seriously violates the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques and severely undermines international law and the basic norms governing international relations, has become one of the root causes of the lingering Taiwan question.
The TRA, never recognized by the international community nor any sovereign state, has no international effect at all. The only things it has are a slew of legal loopholes.
Firstly, the introduction of the act did not accord with international law and the basic norms governing international relations.
According to international law, domestic law cannot be invoked to justify the non-application of international law. However, Washington has used the TRA, a domestic law of the United States, to regulate its foreign relations and the application of international law, making a grave error in terms of the scope of application and distorting the legal logic.
In fact, the TRA has no authority to regulate U.S. relations with any region that falls within the territorial sovereignty of another country.
Washington has made a clear commitment in the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques, especially the China-U.S. Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, that the United States "recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal Government of China" and "acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." It means that Washington recognizes China's sovereignty over Taiwan, and that it should not circumvent the government of the PRC to have direct interactions with Taiwan nor unilaterally enact laws to "maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan."
According to the TRA, the United States "will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability," and the U.S. president and Congress "shall determine ... appropriate action by the United States" in response to any "threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan."
These run counter to Washington's commitment made to China in the Shanghai Communique in 1972, in which it "affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan." Such an act of tampering with U.S. international obligations has seriously violated the principles of international law.
Secondly, the TRA seriously violates the application of pacta sunt servanda under international law, or "the basis of good faith for treaties."
The Preamble to the UN Charter stated that members of the United Nations "determined to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained." Article 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties also stated that "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith" and "a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."
With respect to the Taiwan question, the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques are manifestation of the true intention of the two countries, and the U.S. side has made solemn pledges. However, Washington has made a one-sided decision to downgrade the communiques to policy statements, thereby turning them less effective than the TRA, which was approved by Congress and signed by the U.S. president. This is a violation of international law.
Thirdly, the TRA severely breaches the basic principle of non-intervention.
The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter adopted in 1970 made it clear that "no state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state."
The settlement of the Taiwan question is China's internal affairs and allows no interference by any other external forces. However, Washington has disregarded this fact, and had the brass to claim in the TRA that it considers "any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and stability of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."
Last but not least, the TRA has revealed Washington's evil intention to create the erroneous illusion of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan."
The historical context of the Taiwan question is clear enough, and so are the facts and status quo that both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one and the same China. The 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, as well as the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 all affirmed that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The one-China principle, long been a consensus of the global community as well as an international norm, should have been firmly adhered to by all sovereign states in the world, including the United States.
Still, Washington has deliberately chosen to favor Taiwan as a polity despite the fact that it cut formal ties with the island region in 1979 and established diplomatic ties with the PRC instead.
By claiming in the TRA that "whenever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan," and that "recognition of the PRC shall not affect in any way the ownership of or other rights or interests in properties, tangible and intangible, and other things of value, owned or held on or prior to Dec. 31, 1978, or thereafter acquired or earned by the governing authorities on Taiwan," Washington has treated Taiwan as if the island region were a sovereign state.
Such regression in its promises, agreements with Beijing as well as original positions related to Taiwan serves as an astounding example of Washington's blatant contempt of international law and flagrant infringement on China's sovereignty. Enditem
(The author is deputy director at the Department for Asia-Pacific Studies of the China Institute of International Studies.)
