Ever since the Republic of China (ROC) was replaced by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the representative of China at the UN in 1971, the ROC’s de jure authority has been limited to Taiwan proper, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Since then, the decreasing number of Taiwan’s democratic allies has had an impact on its status as a legal entity under international law.
But this did not happen because the ROC withdrew from the UN. It was due to the fact that the ROC failed to newly demarcate its territory. Because overlapping territory led to competition with the PRC, the international community has not been able reach decisions on the matter.
Today, however, the international community has reached a consensus: One country has one government. These days, it is not acceptable for a colonial state to enter an international organization together with its colonies in the way it was before World War II. Based on this principle, the international community does not support the coexistence of two governments under the “one China” framework.
In other words, the ROC and the PRC hold that their territories are overlapping and that there are two separate governments.
This view is not supported in the international arena and the reason is very clear.
If every country made this claim, rebellions and confrontations would occur, causing chaos in the international order.
Such wishful thinking is indeed in violation of international norms and protocols.
Since 1971, quite a few people have been unable to properly reflect on this question: If we still assert sovereignty over China, then the international community will consider Taiwan to be part of the PRC because there is an overlap between the two countries’ conception of sovereignty.
Therefore, China is justified to threaten Taiwan with the “one China” principle because it sees the Taiwan issue as a domestic issue, and thus the international community cannot intervene.
Three variables are worth considering: the characteristics of a sovereign and independent state, the tributary relationship between Vietnam and China during the Qing Dynasty and Taiwan’s current status.
Taiwan’s situation is similar to that of Vietnam during the Qing Dynasty, and even worse in some ways.
For example, Vietnam was permitted to develop relations with other countries without China intruding, nor did China interfere in Vietnam’s domestic affairs. The Qing government would address Vietnamese officials by their official titles with the exception of the king, and recognized Vietnam as a separate territory with borders.
Today, China sees Taiwan as part of its territory and would remove international borders between the two sides. China never refers to Taiwanese officials by their official titles and intervenes in its domestic politics.
In order to gain more exposure in the international community, Taiwan has made many concessions on sovereignty issues such as the country’s title and entitlements, and has gradually slipped in the direction of becoming a Chinese tributary government. We should be alert, as these changes are incremental.
Finally, I would emphasize that any changes in the country’s title and status require approval from the legislature or should be decided through a referendum to gain public support.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at Tamkang University’s Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Translated by Ted Yang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US