If we want to discuss Taiwan's national status from the perspective of international law, we must first separate the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty from the legal status of the Republic of China (ROC).
The former is a matter of territorial disputes under international law, while the latter is a matter of state or government theory. The two issues involve completely different discussions.
From the perspective of international law, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 in 1971 to officially resolve the problem of which government was the legitimate representative of China, the old ROC or the new People's Republic of China (PRC).
The decision that the PRC government is the only legal representative of China was tantamount to declaring that the PRC government represents China in the international community. The ROC government thus passed on to the PRC.
However, the fact that the ROC is not a legal entity under international law is a different issue from the issue of Taiwan's status. The countries of the world do not, however, have the right to recognize Taiwan as a part of China. Since its establishment in October 1949, the PRC has never for a day ruled the island. Only the Taiwanese living here in Taiwan have the right to decide Taiwan's sovereignty. Neither China nor any other foreign country has the right to make that decision.
After Taiwan's democratization and direct presidential elections the Taiwanese have the ability to freely express their opinion. They have already removed the obstacles to their right to exercise self-determination, and it is now becoming difficult to continue to claim that Taiwan's legal status remains inconclusive.
Moreover, the view that Taiwan's legal status remains inconclusive cannot ensure Taiwan's independence from China.
It merely passively points out that the island does not necessarily belong to China. Taiwan remains an object that still has to be disposed of by China and the international community, and in the end, China will most likely get its way.
On Oct. 25, 2004, former US secretary of state Colin Powell commented during a visit to China that Taiwan "does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation" and is not an independent state.
This year, British academic James Crawford discussed Taiwan's status at length in the new edition of his book The Creation of States in International Law.
He cites various official Taiwanese documents to prove that Taiwan is not a nation, and his reason for reaching this conclusion is that "Taiwan is not a state, because it does not claim to be."
Back in Taiwan, both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party and their supporters have always claimed that the ROC is an independent, sovereign state and that they will safeguard the nation's sovereignty.
Meanwhile, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and its supporters also claim that the ROC exists independently of any other state and that Taiwan absolutely is an independent state whose national title is the Republic of China. Even those striving for independence claim that Taiwan has been long independent, and that sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan.
These claims and this kind of understanding are obviously very different from the international community's perspective, and this is the real reason behind Taiwan's diplomatic predicament.
Li Ming-juinn lectures at the Research Center for Humanistic Education at Huafan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS