Following a claim by Academia Historica president Lin Man-houng (林滿紅) that she “discovered” in the Treaty of Taipei that Japan handed sovereignty over Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC) in 1952, the “status” of Taiwan is again a topic of hot debate.
Many have pointed out the errors in Lin’s claim and I will not repeat their arguments here.
The US stands by its position on Taiwan’s status as “undecided” based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Many Taiwanese follow this reasoning and agree that Taiwan’s status is “undecided.”
But what does “status” refer to? Is it the question of who has sovereignty over Taiwan that is “undecided” or the question of whether Taiwan is a country?
Taiwanese people were not consulted nor did they have any say on the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Treaty of Taipei. More than 60 years have passed since their signing and Taiwan has undergone enormous changes. Taiwanese have transformed Taiwan into a democracy. Taiwanese have elected their own government, including the presidency and the legislature. The government of Taiwan, whatever its name may be, is subject to the approval of the Taiwanese people.
It is clear that sovereignty has been in the hands of the Taiwanese since the mid-1990s.
The “status” of Taiwan’s sovereignty has been decided. But what about Taiwan’s “status” as a state?
In the Montevideo Convention of 1933, a “state” was defined as having a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
There is no question that Taiwan has a population of around 23 million and that it has a defined territory and a government.
As for the question of ties with other countries, the Montevideo Convention did not say a state had to be “recognized” by other countries, but that it should have the “capacity to enter into relations with other states.”
Taiwan is the 17th largest economy in the world. It interacts with most countries and has 71 foreign missions — 23 embassies and 48 representative offices — and numerous trade and cultural exchange offices. Taiwan clearly has the capacity to enter into relations with other countries. Most countries, it seems, conduct business with Taiwan in a manner that treats it as a state.
But is Taiwan truly a state? The problem lies within Taiwan itself. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has told foreign media that Taiwan is a region of the Republic of China (ROC). Though his comments sparked criticism, he was not entirely wrong because the current Constitution contains phrases like “To meet the requisites of the nation prior to national unification” and says the “president and the vice president shall be directly elected by the entire populace of the free area of the Republic of China.”
Members of the legislature “shall be elected from Special Municipalities, counties and cities in the free area,” it says.
Regardless of how other countries treat Taiwan, its own president and Constitution recognize it only as a region of the ROC.
Taiwanese are thus denying themselves the status of statehood.
Taiwan’s “status” as a “state” is indeed “undecided” and will remain so until Taiwanese, by exercising their sovereignty, scrap the ROC Constitution and create their own Taiwanese constitution.
Sebo Koh is the publisher of ‘Taiwan Tribune (USA)’, a member of the Central Committee of World United Formosans for Independence and a spokesman for the World Taiwanese Congress.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS