Former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) statement to a Deutsche Welle reporter that the cross-strait relationship was a state-to-state relationship or a special state-to-state relationship may have been legally flawed, but his aim and logic were abundantly clear.
When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) drew parallels between the two Germanys and the cross-strait situation when speaking to German visitors, he had no idea what he was talking about.
After its defeat in World War II, Germany was occupied by the Allied forces and its division was forced to accommodate the US and Russia, making it a prototypical divided country.
Taiwan, on the other hand, was ceded by the Qing Empire to Japan, which Tokyo later renounced in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Legally speaking, Taiwan did not belong to China and so it stands to reason that it never seceded from it.
Since there are both fundamental legal and factual differences, the only useful example Taiwan can extract from the German experience is that the two Germanys coexisted peacefully as two sovereign states and that both joined the UN, although they maintained a special state-to-state relationship.
From this perspective, Lee’s special state-to-state dictum is actually a concession because it implies that there are two Chinas and that there is a possibility that the two in the future will merge into one China through peaceful means.
However, Lee’s pragmatic view had been criticized by both China and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for creating an “independent Taiwan” and “Taiwanese independence.”
The KMT does not recognize that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state, nor does it promote the view that the relationship between Taiwan and China is a special state-to-state relationship.
That only leaves the unification part of the German comparison, but that part is unacceptable to Taiwan.
The German division was forced and the communist government in East Germany was supported by the Soviet Union which did not want unification.
This problem was not resolved until the weakening of the Soviet Union toward the end of the 1980s, when the East German public voted to join democratic West Germany and return to one united Germany.
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait differ tremendously in both territorial and population size.
In addition, the Chinese communist state aims to annex democratic Taiwan. This is the exact opposite of the situation in East Germany, where the population was only too happy to accept the West German democratic system.
However, even if the Chinese authoritarian system were to collapse, the Chinese people would not likely hold a referendum to join democratic Taiwan.
And even if they were, we have already seen how the incompetent KMT government would be unable to rule such a country.
Ma does not promote the view that Taiwan is a sovereign state, nor does he dare promote the view that the cross-strait relationship is a special state-to-state relationship.
Instead, he accepts the “one China” principle and promotes eventual unification.
Empty talk about the experience of the two Germanys only reinforces the impression that he is supporting China’s ambitions to annex Taiwan and incorporate it into China’s bastardized communist system.
James Wang is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
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