By James E. Auer and Akihisa Nagashima

For all the negative reaction to President Lee Teng-hui's call in a Deutsche Welle TV interview last July for state-to-state relations between Taiwan and China, the arguments he makes in support of the idea in his new article "Understanding Taiwan" in "Foreign Affairs," are straightforward and almost understated. He doesn't even mention that Taiwan has no long history of governance from mainland China, nor does he point out that in 1936, Mao Zedong expressed "enthusiastic" support for the independence of Taiwan and Korea, both then ruled by Japan.

Japan simply left Taiwan in 1945 and did not cede control to any government. The Republic of China did effectively take control after 1945, and it moved its capital there when Chiang Kai-shek fled the mainland in 1949. As President Lee observes, the PRC took control of mainland China, not Taiwan; it didn't then, and hasn't since, controlled Taiwan. Thus the island was divided from the mainland by the actions of the Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China. Lee notes that given the 50-year separation, Taiwan cannot be accused of causing national disintegration by declaring Independence. In fact, he says, since the RoC has been sovereign since 1912, and the PRC has never controlled Taiwan, Taipei has no need to declare "independence."

Following from that, Lee argues, it is important to understand that the idea of "Taiwan as a renegade province" is a straw man created by a Beijing that has neither jurisdiction over nor any legal claim to it under international law. Lee could have compared (though he did not) Beijing's straw man to the claim by the ROC from 1949 to 1990 that Taipei was the legitimate ruler of China. The fact that the U.S., Japan and others supported that view from 1949 to 1971 did not make it reality.

Vast Differences: In fact, says Lee, though its sovereignty today extends only to the territories of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Quemoy and Matsu, the ROC has been a nation since 1912. Despite its reduced size, he notes, the ROC is the world's 19th largest economy and 15th largest trader. What is obvious, he says, is that since the PRC was established in 1949, the two sides of the Taiwan strait have been ruled separately. He can now proudly add that vast differences have occurred in 50 years of separation: Taiwan has be- come a market economy and more recently a fullfledged democracy. Finally, "Understanding Taiwan" notes that while the ROC renounced the use of force to reunify China in 1991, China refuses to reciprocate. He didn't need to add that if China did use force, it would be to subordinate Taiwan to a communist dictatorship.

Japan's foremost strategic thinker, Ambassador Hisahiko Okazaki, points out that the PRC's claim to Taiwan is like The Emperor With No Clothes. To the child's cry that it visibly controls nothing across the Strait, Beijing asks imperiously: "Am I not Taiwan's legitimate government?" Beijing, says Okazaki, "even seeks the opinion of... someone living in a white building on the other side of the world, and the person says, `Yes, your majesty, you are always properly dressed.'" But, as he also notes, "Truth must prevail at some time," as it did in the case of the Chinese mainland in 1971. Lee and Okazaki are not alone. Similar sentiments can be found in the August 1999 "Statement on the Defense of Taiwan" by a bipartisan group of U.S. foreign policy specialists from the Project for the New American Century--and in Gov. George W. Bush's recent foreign policy speech at the Reagan Library.

Will of the People: As strong advocates of the continuing relevance of the U.S.-Japan security alliance (which seems to take second place to China for the Clinton administration), we believe that the 1971 U.S. and Japanese official statement that Taiwan's security is critical to peace and stability in East Asia, remains valid. As the New American Century statement puts it, "the future status of Taiwan must reflect the will of the people of Taiwan as expressed through their duly elected government."

Critics may say that President Lee created unnecessary tension with his interview. But "Understanding Taiwan" makes a logical argument that the PRC's position on Taiwan challenges both international law and basic concepts of self-determination. Just because a man now living in a white building who wanted to reschedule his trip to Beijing said that Taiwan has no standing, doesn't make it fact. As Gov. Bush put it, "the conduct of China's government can be alarming abroad, and appalling at home." Beijing, he added, has no "right... to impose its rule on a free people... we will help Taiwan to defend itself."

* James E. Auer heads the U.S.-Japan Center at Vanderbilt; Akihisa Nagashima is at the Council on Foreign Relations