Frank Chiang (江永芳) of the Taiwan Public Policy Council has argued that Taiwan is not a state, since "there is no government constituting the government of the state of Taiwan" ("Sadly, Taiwan is still not a state" March 12, page 8). In so doing, his zeal for Taiwan's Independence ends up giving away the farm, intellectually speaking.
His comparison of the people of Taiwan to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation is insulting to the former. Taiwan truly has a de facto independence; and there is no further proof of it than Beijing's practical caution despite its stormy rhetoric. What this means is that if something walks, quacks, looks like, and acts like a duck, it's a duck; and if Taiwan looks, acts, and talks like a state, it's a state.
As a professor of law, Chiang should know as well that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Beijing does not possess Taiwan; but after two elections after which pan-blue generals stay at their posts under a pan-green president, it sure looks as if the people of Taiwan are exercising such possession.
Taiwan is as much the designation of a state as Albion (Britain), the Emerald Isle (Ireland), or any of a number of informal names used for various nation?states. The fact that the official name for Taiwan and associated islands is at present the Republic of China is moot, as is the precise legal interpretation of the documents signed at the end of World War II.
The fact of the matter is that whether Taiwan calls itself Taiwan, Republic of China, Da Liuqiu (大琉球), or even Bob, it is in fact a state that itself determines the admission or exclusion of nationals of any other state that might conceivably claim its territory. Or, conversely, treat it with the respect it deserves. It coins its own money, it collects taxes, and exercises an effective jurisdiction over its territory -- which Beijing does not.
The comparison of the Taiwanese to the Palestinians is insulting because the latter are under military occupation because Israel, the occupying power, won a defensive war against a coalition of states determined to destroy it and used the West Bank of the Jordan and Gaza as bases from which to attack.
In Taiwan's case, the only military force evident in Taiwan is one that is manned and officered by people who, for the most part, regard Taiwan and its associated islands as their home and, on return to civilian life, plan to contribute their energies to its peaceful development.
Those serving in Taiwan's military who might conceivably regard their homes as various provinces in China would delay return to such homes until such time as there is a permanent peace advantageous to Taiwan; that is, either Taiwan's de jure independence is recognized or China reunifies under a government that looks more like President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Taiwan than like China under Mao Zedong (毛澤東).
Further, in the event of an attack by Beijing the civilian population of Taiwan would support the defensive efforts of its brothers, sons, nephews, and friends now manning the military bases in Taiwan. In this, the people of Taiwan seem to think and act like people who already have their own country -- indeed, their will to keep it seems strong. So Chiang's article also insults those now prepared to defend Taiwan with their lives.
Those who advocate the international recognition of Taiwan's de facto and de jure separate international status do themselves a great disservice by remaining stuck in a post-World War II decolonization or national liberation mode of thinking. Taiwan has a history very different from other countries and need not be ashamed of it. Rather, Taiwan, regardless of what it chooses to call itself should feel no need to deny any section of its history.
Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders are by no means diminished when they call their languages "English" and acknowledge that they are culturally and in part ethnically akin to Great Britain.
The Taiwan of the near future -- which hopefully will enjoy international recognition and trade ambassadors with Beijing -- will lose nothing at all by seeing itself as heir to the Chinese culture and the Republic of China established in 1911 by Sun Yat-sen (孫中山); unless it is extreme nationalism's penchant for historical dishonesty.
Indeed, the people of Taiwan should see their history as offering an opportunity for a new way of looking at things rather than as a burden.
Chiang has no need to shortchange a land which he evidently loves.
Peter Herz
US
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations