On Aug. 7 the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times sister newspaper) reported that Chen Yi-shen (
The latter group insists that a declaration of independence and a new national day are both necessary.
But this move would mean pushing an already independent Taiwan back into the womb just to get a better look at its birth. A country's national day does not have to be its independence day.
For example, Australia won independence on Jan. 1, 1901, but its national day is Jan. 26, which marks the day in 1788 when the first governor, Arthur Phillip, landed at Sydney Cove.
Many Taiwanese do not like Double Ten National Day or the name "Republic of China" (ROC), but both are historically significant. In future, we could consider adding a historical memorial day and make that Taiwan's national day.
Those who claim that Taiwan is "already independent" often say that Taiwan is a de facto independent country without de jure independence.
They usually advocate either the idea that Taiwan has been independent ever since the ROC government was ousted from China in 1949, or that the democratization following the lifting of martial law marks the nation's independence, which evolved through self-determination. Both sides agree, however, that Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the Taiwanese people.
The essence of the controversy is whether de jure independence and membership in international organizations are imperative for a normal state.
What is a country? The requirements according to international law are having a people, a territory, a government and the ability to maintain relations with other nations.
Does Taiwan meet these requirements? Of course. So, the problem isn't within Taiwan, but rather outside of our borders.
China is waging an international war against Taiwan by isolating it under the pretext that Taiwan is not independent.
Taiwan also says that it has not declared de jure independence. Beijing has declared a war of sorts and Taiwan is fighting on the battlefield of China's choice. How can we win? Taiwan should consider abandoning that battleground, although this seems daunting. For Taiwan, the correct line of action is to take our case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Only nations may file a legal action with the ICJ. If we are blocked from filing ourselves, asking the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion should be feasible through our allies.
The ICJ is the highest interpreter of the UN Charter. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that Taiwan is not a nation, but we can ask Taiwan's diplomatic allies to request that the court issue an advisory opinion to the 16 UN specialized organizations, since they and the UN are the only bodies that can ask for such an opinion. They could ask the court's opinion of what a "country" is, whether Taiwan is a country, and what reason there is to block Taiwan from participating in the 16 UN specialized organizations.
If the court finds that China's oppression is the only thing preventing Taiwan from participation, Taiwan should file a lawsuit against China for infringing on its rights.
In this way, the court will directly prove that Taiwan is a country. Taiwan could then use this lawsuit in its bid to join the UN.
But even if the ICJ refuses to consider the lawsuit, we could ask Taiwan's diplomatic allies to file it.
By doing so, Taiwan doesn't have anything to lose and could gain international recognition.
Lloyd Fan is an assistant professor at Kun-Shan University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath