US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Monday that Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent country. The question is: Is Powell really clear on what he is talking about? If the status of Taiwan really is what Powell claims it to be, then his statement could be interpreted as meaning either that sovereignty over Taiwan remains undetermined, as stated in the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, or that Taiwan comes under the sovereignty of China.
The question of whether this China is the Republic of China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China (PRC) will surely lead to further dispute. To those interpreting Powell's statement as meaning that Taiwan belongs to the PRC, we can only say that this goes further than any of the communiques signed by Washington and Beijing, and it is not consistent with the US' position.
A better explanation for Powell's comments in Beijing is that he was simply continuing the US' long-standing position of maintaining an ambiguous China policy. He was only clarifying the fact that the US does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taipei and that the US does not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan. But nor does the US recognize Taiwan as being part of the PRC's territory. The US hopes that the Taiwan sovereignty issue will be resolved through negotiations between the governments on each side of the Taiwan Strait. The question of whether there will be peaceful unification will be decided by the outcome of such negotiations -- which must be approved by the Taiwanese people to take effect.
When US officials speak on the international stage about Taiwan's lack of national sovereignty, they clearly demonstrate how perilous Taiwan's situation is today -- even its closest friend finds itself unable to lend public support.
Only if Taiwanese show determination and are willing to defend themselves at any cost will they be able to avoid being swallowed up by China by one means or another. Beijing's most devious ploy is to get Taiwanese to take national defense lightly.
If Taiwan loses its military ability to oppose China's threats, what reason would Beijing have to sit down at the negotiating table to engage in substantive and meaningful talks with Taiwan? China would be able to threaten Taiwan militarily at any time -- and continue to do so until this nation surrenders. If this is a situation that the pan-blue camp finds intolerable, then they have no reason to oppose the arms-procurement budget that has turned the Legislative Yuan into a battleground.
Taiwan meets all the conditions for being a modern democratic nation, so Powell's comments about Taiwan not having sovereignty are a slap in the face. Unless the people of Taiwan are willing to face the same fate as the residents of Hong Kong and Macao, then there is only one thing they can do. They must convince the legislators they elected to represent them that Taiwan must equip itself with advanced weapons. The government must accelerate the development of a society sharing a strong sense of common identity. The people and the government must show their determined resistance to communist rule. This is a road that Taiwan has no choice but to follow.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS