On Aug. 11, the New York Times crossword puzzle had a particularly easy clue for 18 across: “Most populous nation not in the UN.” The answer? Taiwan, of course. So, no wonder most of my fellow Americans are surprised to hear that the US and Taiwan, despite our long-standing and close alliance, do not have diplomatic relations.

The fact that the US Senate does not confirm the US’ top diplomat to Taiwan, as it does for all other countries, comes as a surprise as well. After all, US law recognizes Taiwan as an independent, sovereign country with its own territory, government and population.

Yet, without strong US backing for Asia’s freest democracy, China’s anaconda strategy in world diplomacy will fatally strangle Taiwan’s international space.

The Formosan Association for Public Affairs fears Taiwan might not be receiving the vital recognition and respect in Washington that the country needs to survive as a US partner in democratic Asia.

It therefore urges the legislature to reimpose the constitutional requirement for Senate advice and consent in the US president’s appointment of the director of the American Institution in Taiwan (AIT).

Article II, Section 2, of the constitution says that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.”

The 1979 US Taiwan Relations Act, signed by then-US president Jimmy Carter on April 10, 1979, mandates that committees of the US Congress shall monitor the “operation and procedures” of the AIT.

The AIT’s Web site only admits that the US Department of State provides a “large part” of its funding “and guidance in its operations.”

Truth be told, the US secretary of state is the sole source of the AIT’s money, and is the sole selector of AIT’s “director” — the exact equivalent of an ambassador in every respect.

The AIT director supervises a large multiagency US mission with foreign service officers from the US departments of agriculture, commerce, defense and others, as well as the state department, exactly as a chief of mission would in any other US embassy.

The AIT’s Taipei office has also had a “consular section,” staffed with active-duty US consuls and vice consuls for several years.

Allowing the secretary of state to self-advise and self-consent, and then self-appoint the nation’s ambassador to Taiwan, arguably, is an unconstitutional delegation of the Senate’s legislative power to the US executive branch.

It seems indefensible for the executive branch to pretend that an official mission to a foreign country such as the AIT, staffed exclusively by executive branch officers, funded exclusively from the US Department of the Treasury, and operating solely at the direction of the secretary of state, is not an embassy.

It is also disingenuous in the extreme to say that the chief of that mission is not an ambassador, or a public minister or a consul, or even an “officer of the United States whose appointments are not … otherwise provided for” in the constitution.

To this day, the official nature of high-level US-Taiwan interactions has remained unchanged. However, some recent moves on the US side bode well for a more normal bilateral relationship.

In May, the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, the Taiwanese counterpart of the AIT, was renamed less ambiguously the Taiwan Council for US Affairs.

In the Indo-Pacific Strategy Report published by the US Department of Defense in June, Taiwan is referred to as one of the four “countries” that are reliable, capable and natural partners of the US.

In a speech at the Heritage Foundation in late June, US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver made it clear that the US is going to treat Taiwan as a “normal security systems partner.”

There is ample precedent of a US ambassador being sent to Taiwan after Senate confirmation. From 1949 to 1979, six US ambassadors to the “Republic of China” (ROC) were confirmed by the Senate. Leonard Unger, the last one among the six, was confirmed after a Senate hearing in 1974.

When this hearing took place, the US recognized the ROC, rather than the People’s Republic of China, as the only representative of China. However, the questions for Unger were mostly about the Taiwan-US alliance, bilateral economic relations and Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) health.

If Senate confirmation of a US ambassador to Taiwan was indispensable in the face of the threat from communist China during the Cold War, more than ever, it is in the critical national interest of the US now to restore such procedure amid escalating US-China competition.

The absence of Senate confirmation of the AIT director is a side effect of cutting US diplomatic ties with the ROC. This should not be taken for granted, though.

Indeed, while Washington no longer recognized Taipei as the capital of “China,” Carter directed that the entire US government continue to treat “Taiwan” as it did all other “foreign countries, nations, states, governments or similar entities.”

The Taiwan Relations Act then defined “Taiwan” as “the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands … and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the ‘Republic of China’ prior to Jan. 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities.”

Therefore, in law, the US recognizes Taiwan as a foreign nation state, with a defined territory and population, and a government that used to be called the “Republic of China,” but which might change that name in the future.

Simply calling the American mission in Taipei “AIT” does not alter the legal fact that it is an embassy, and the chief of its mission is an “officer of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.”

On Feb. 23, 1979, then-US secretary of state Cyrus Vance wrote a letter to then-US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations chairman Frank Church on the accountability of the proposed AIT.

In the letter, Vance said that it would not be appropriate for the Senate to advise and consent to the appointment of trustees or officers of the AIT due to the unofficial nature of the institute.

However, Vance also pledged that names of the prospective trustees and officers would be forwarded to the committee.

If the committee would express reservations about these nominations, the state department, according to Vance, would “undertake to discuss and resolve the matter fully with the committee before proceeding.”

However, such a promise has yet to be fulfilled.

Recent legislation highlights Taiwan as an indispensable ally to the US regardless of the change of administrations.

The “six assurances” resolutions passed by former US president Barack Obama’s administration, the Taiwan Travel Act and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act that US President Donald Trump signed into law, and the National Defense Authorization acts of past years all reflect the pivotal role Taiwan plays in Washington’s Indo-Pacific policies.

Facing growing Chinese diplomatic assertiveness and military aggressiveness against Taiwan, the Senate should retake its central role in selecting the US’ top diplomat in Taiwan.

This article is first published in Taipei Times (2019/9/27)

The post US should confirm the AIT director appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

The post 美國應落實「只稱呼臺灣為臺灣」的政策 appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

今日台美雙方已進入關係回暖、戰略調整的新時代。經過台灣人公共事務會（Formosan Association for Public Affairs，簡稱FAPA）會員在美國國會遊說，並在地方上蒐集連署書，終使美國國會陸續通過了《對台六項保證》決議案及《台灣旅行法》等友台法案。特別是「六項保證」從雷根總統的口頭承諾，到提勒森及蓬佩奧兩任國務卿的再次確認，以及《亞洲再保證倡議法案》中重申，已成為美國對台安全承諾的一大支柱。美中不足的是，美方至今仍延續奠基於《台灣關係法》及「美中三公報」（《上海公報》、《建交公報》、《八一七公報》）的「一中政策」。由於美方在「三公報」中「認知」（acknowledge）到中國將台灣視為自身一部份的立場，被視為是對中方較有利的文件。FAPA主張，美國官方若持續此立場，非但不利台灣前景，更將危及自身利益。

美國應重新檢視三公報在一中政策地位的原因有四。第一，「三公報」不如《台灣關係法》及《六保證》，經過美國國會完整立法程序認可。《台灣關係法》與《六保證》皆以法案或決議案形式通過國會，而中國在其「一中原則」中強調的「三公報」，至多是並陳美中立場的「政策聲明」，未獲美國國會背書。第二，「三公報」制定時忽視台灣人意志，近年台灣主流民意亦不支持統一。美方應尊重台灣人自決權，重新檢視其一中政策。第三，國際上過去早有支持台灣人決定自身未來的聲音。早在一九五○年代，無論是美國國會或舊金山和會，都有議員或與會代表發聲，支持台灣人主張決定自身地位的權利。第四，延續一中政策此一冷戰遺緒，已不符當今美國國家利益。今日中國持續打壓台灣國際空間，並威脅武統台灣。美方應重新檢視一中政策，以免印太戰略出現破口，危及台灣的自由、民主、開放社會。

數十年來，各地FAPA會員積極奔走，遊說國會議員協助台灣民主化、改善人權狀況、並提升國際地位。是以FAPA敦促美國政府採取更合乎現實、台灣民意及美國利益的政策，將台灣關係法以及六項保證做為台美關係基石，並對三公報中認知台灣為中國一部份的立場，採取零容忍態度！

原文刊載於自由時報（2019/8/14）

The post 美國應重新檢視美中三公報於一中政策的地位 appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

一九九四年十月十三日，時任駐美代表魯肇忠向美國在台協會理事主席白樂崎（Nat Bellocchi）致函道：「我很榮幸通知您，我方政府已經正式決議將我駐華府辦公室命名為駐美國台北經濟文化代表處。」

一九九四年十二月二十日，白樂崎回函魯肇忠確認收到「告知駐美辦公室由北美事務協調委員會更名為駐美國台北經濟文化代表處」的訊息。

一九九○年十月三日，在一封寫給美國國家安全顧問史考克羅夫（Brent Scowcroft）、代理中央情報局執行秘書長彼特曼（James R. Pittman），以及國防部執行秘書長杜比亞（John A. Dubia）上校的信函中，美國國務卿芮效儉（Stapleton Roy）寫道：「因美台僅保持非官方關係，美國政府不再稱呼台灣為『中華民國』—一個反映台北持續宣稱其為中國政府的名詞—我方僅稱台灣為台灣。」

每年台灣雙十節前，芮效儉的用詞會在美國務卿向全球各地大使館與領事處的備忘錄中重現：「國務院提醒各駐外單位，因美台僅保持非官方關係，美國政府並不稱台灣為『中華民國』、『中華民國在台灣』，或是一個國家。美國政府僅稱台灣為台灣。」

我們因此有美國在「台」協會以及「台灣」旅行法。

那為何代表處稱為「台北」經濟文化代表處，而非「台灣」經濟文化代表處？

據我了解，當華府於一九九四年向台北要求一份新的頭銜清單，以取代北美事務協調委員會時，台灣政府並沒有提出任何一個包含「台灣」的選項，即使芮效儉早於一九九○年便提出「我們僅稱台灣為台灣」。

很明顯地，因為有「台北」，台北經濟文化代表處的名字無法彰顯其性質。它製造了一個該代表處僅代表台灣首都台北的印象。依此邏輯，與台北經濟文化代表處相呼應的「美國在台協會」應為「華盛頓在台協會」。

在此台美關係進入到前所未有的良好狀態的時刻，本人謹代表FAPA全體會員誠摯建議台灣政府，勇敢地踏出第一步，指出現在的台灣民情政局已大大不同於一九九四年，並主動向美方提出改名之要求。本人也代表全體會員要求美方政府排除中國反對的歪理，正視此正名的要求，使台灣駐美代表處的名稱與美國駐台代表處的名稱，符合現狀和對等原則。

這是美國尊重事實，改變台北駐美代表處名稱為符合美國政策的「台灣代表處」的時候了！

這個鼓舞人心的前例，將使其他國家跟進仿效。

原文刊載於自由時報（2018/8/23）

The post 從「台北經濟文化代表處」到「台灣代表處」 appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

In a letter dated Oct. 13, 1994, then-representative to the US Benjamin Lu (魯肇忠) wrote to then-American Institute in Taiwan chairman Nat Bellocchi: “I take great pleasure in informing you that my government has formally approved that the name of our Washington office will be Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States.”

Two months later, on Dec. 20, Bellocchi responded, acknowledging receipt of the letter “informing me of the change in name of your office from the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA) to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO).”

In a letter dated Oct. 3, 1990, then-US Department of State executive secretary J. Stapleton Roy had written to then-US national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, then-CIA acting executive secretary James Pittman and then-US Department of Defense executive secretary Colonel John Dubia, saying: “Consistent with the unofficial nature of US-Taiwan ties, the US Government [USG] no longer refers to Taiwan as the ‘Republic of China’ — a term reflecting Taipei’s continuing claim to be the government of China… We refer to Taiwan simply as Taiwan.”

Roy’s verbiage is repeated every year in a memo that the U.S. Secretary of State sends to all its embassies and consular offices around the world prior to Taiwan’s National “Double Ten” Day, where the Secretary of State writes: “The Department reminds posts that, consistent with the unofficial nature of US -Taiwan ties, the U.S. Government does not refer to Taiwan as the “Republic of China,” the “Republic of China on Taiwan,” or a country. The USG refers to Taiwan simply as “Taiwan.”

We therefore have an “American Institute in TAIWAN” and a “TAIWAN Relations Act.”

So why is TECRO called the “Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office” and not the “Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office?”

I understand that in 1994, when Washington asked Taipei for a short list of new names to replace the oddly nondescriptive CCNAA (mis)nomer, Taipei did not submit a possible new name for its representative office with the word “Taiwan” in it — despite Roy stating in 1990 that “we refer to Taiwan simply as Taiwan” in US guidelines.

The TECRO name is nondescriptive, as it has the word “Taipei” in it, which creates the impression that the office only represents the capital and its residents.

It would be the equivalent of referring to the American Institute in Taiwan as the Washington Institute in Taiwan.

It is time that the US started adhering to reality by changing TECRO to a name that is consistent with US policy: the Taiwan Representative Office. It would set an inspiring precedent for other countries to emulate.

This article is first published in Taipei Times (2018/8/17)

The post Name change could be inspiring appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.