Wrong track to sovereignty
Many Taiwan supporters like Michelle Wang (“Lesson 1: Which one is our country?” Oct. 24, page 8) continue to believe that drafting a new constitution will help Taiwan on the road to normalization and boost international recognition for the Taiwanese republic. However, the burning issue of non-recognition of Taiwan is the diplomatic centerpiece of the Shanghai Communique and “one China” policy, which remains the political bane of Taiwan supporters.
The general consensus is the Republic of China (ROC) is nothing more than a Chinese government-in-exile and the ROC on Taiwan has been a putative state of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Taiwan since 1949. If we treat the ROC in this manner, then we can see how international non-recognition factors into the Taiwan dilemma.
But how can anyone support the ROC on Taiwan as a proxy for the Taiwanese republic? That is a political conflict of interest and does not allow for the impartial prosecution of the KMT for war crimes under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This co-opts the pan-greens and cannot be supported in the interest of bringing justice to the people of Taiwan.
We must hold the KMT accountable for 1947’s atrocities and its stolen assets must be brought under the treaty’s judicial process of redress. The pursuit of justice under the San Francisco treaty can lead to the legal extinction of the exiled ROC on Taiwan without disrupting the current “one China” status quo.
Popular sovereignty is an overextension of the ROC putative state and entirely ignores the treaty. The ROC constitutes a secret codeword for the Taiwan republic in the pan-green camp, but Retrocession Day is a fraudulent conveyance of Taiwan’s territory.
Territorial sovereignty for Taiwan is only derived from a treaty. The organic law of Taiwan’s cession should be rewritten in accordance with US military government regulations that can legally transform the “governing authorities” from the ROC martial law era into a true “civil government” in the post-1952 period.
By closely following the treaty’s regulations and supporting the rule of law, we could ultimately see the KMT held fully accountable for its actions. Japanese decolonialization is an ongoing process and it remains incomplete, but removing the ROC governing apparatus is a perk of the treaty’s redress. This is just the beginning of the end.
Jeff Geer
Olympia, Washington
Pro-Nationalistic?
Don’t you think that the pro-Taiwanese effort should be termed “pro-Nationalistic?” (This should not be confused with “pro-Nationalists” or “pro-KMT” sentiment). The term “pro-localization” seems to lower the status of Taiwan to a “local” entity rather than a “national” one.
E. Gene Deune,
Baltimore, Maryland
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS