On May 20, former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan Richard Bush and the head of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, Jason Yuan (袁健生), hosted a seminar during an academic conference to mark the centennial of the October 1911 Revolution in the Republic of China (ROC) at the Brookings Institution in the US capital.
Bush took the opportunity to remind those people in attendance that the US had broached the prickly issue of Taiwan and the Republic of China back in the 1950s and 1960s with the concepts of “New Country” (the founding of a new country) and “two Chinas.”
He then said that the concept of “two Chinas” that was proposed by the US government decades ago could still be applied to cross-strait relations today, but this would only be possible if Beijing would accept it.
Taiwan’s Presidential Office, via the Central News Agency, responded by reiterating that under the framework of the ROC Constitution, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait do not recognize each other’s sovereignty, but do not deny each other’s jurisdiction and are working toward a consensus, putting aside differences and pursuing peaceful cross-strait development.
Bush’s speech was interesting in that it allowed us to reflect on past political events through the prism of present realities.
The more pertinent question is what exactly did President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) mean when he invoked the ROC Constitution?
The ROC Constitution, to which the idea of “one China” is essential, underpins the “exile” status of the government of the ROC (but not of Taiwan).
Without it, the ROC would not be able to exist alongside the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the implications of which include the fact that the authorities in Taipei would also no longer be internationally regarded as exiled “Chinese Taipei.”
Ma’s continued emphasis on the Constitution reflects his own personal ideology and the way in which it embraces this exile status.
However, even as Ma disagrees with Beijing over the issue of legitimacy, he still expects China to accept the idea of both sides not recognizing each other’s sovereignty while not denying the other’s jurisdiction.
Surely this leads us right back to the concept of “two Chinas.” At the same time, it contradicts the idea of “one China” to which Ma insists he subscribes.
Such tangled logic. How can someone who holds such ideas hope to govern Taiwan properly?
Furthermore, although Bush discussed the “two Chinas” concept, he neglected to account for the fact that this is not 1979.
The US government no longer recognizes Taiwan as the ROC. As far as it is concerned, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) only really talks about the de facto governing authorities in Taiwan. Although the ROC has been around for 100 years, both the “New Country” and “two Chinas” idea take as their starting point mutual cooperation and security between the US and Japan, including the 1950 Treaty of Peace with Japan (Treaty of San Francisco).
It is clear that Ma’s focus is on the governing regime, not the people.
His ideology has little to do with the notion of the “Taiwanese people” so explicitly stated in the TRA.
HoonTing is an independent Taiwanese researcher focusing on the issue of Taiwan’s status.
TRANSLATED BY KATHERINE WEI
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