When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) demanded that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) recognize the Republic of China (ROC), Tsai responded by saying that the ROC is Taiwan and Taiwan is the ROC. Tsai’s comments drew immediate criticism from China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO), with officials saying that Tsai’s idea is a repackaged form of Taiwanese independence and that cross-strait relations have never been and can never be “state-to-state” relations. Obviously, for China, the ROC is merely a living corpse and it will never allow the ROC to change in any way or exist in the international community.
This shows that there are three ROCs: Ma’s ROC, Tsai’s ROC and the ROC as perceived by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Tsai’s ROC merely adopts the name of the ROC, which was established in 1912, to refer to present-day Taiwan. It can thus be understood as referring to “the sovereign country made up of 23 million people and which currently uses the name ROC.” This viewpoint is well in line with reality, although saying that “Taiwan is the ROC” inevitably leads to complications relating to the Chinese Civil War.
In contrast to Tsai’s comments about the ROC being Taiwan and Taiwan being the ROC, Ma says the ROC stretches across the entirety of China and that Taiwan is part of China. In other words, Ma thinks Taiwan is simply a part of China that still has not been unified with it. Although Ma is Taiwan’s president voted in by Taiwanese voters, he does not see Taiwan as a country.
If we look back at what has happened since 1912, we will see that the ROC has never ruled the whole of China and that after it was chased out of China in 1949, it started to occupy Taiwan, a place that never belonged to it, but which it has occupied ever since. Therefore, Ma’s ROC is not only a flat-out refusal to recognize that the ROC is in fact Taiwan, but also includes daydreams about the ROC government owning all of China’s territories. In short, it’s a pipe dream.
Apart from fantasizing that the ROC’s territory overlaps with that of the PRC, Ma has expanded this fantasy by insisting that the PRC agrees that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” Ma has taken this to the point where he says that the ROC is not something of the past, but exists in the present continuous tense. This, however, does not sit well with China.
At China’s centennial celebrations of the Wuchang Uprising, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) did not mention a single word about the ROC. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) mouthpiece the Global Times said the ROC that exists today is but a temporary historical enclave and that the real ROC died in 1949. It was against that backdrop that TAO officials criticized Tsai’s ideas as a repackaged form of Taiwanese independence.
The idea that the ROC is Taiwan and that Taiwan is the ROC is quite similar to the view that China held during the times of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), when China said the two Chiangs occupied Taiwan in the name of the ROC, thus blocking China from completing the great task of unifying China — eliminating the ROC and annexing Taiwan — and in effect creating an independent ROC, although the process was different from the formation of Taiwanese independence.
Today, the PRC would neither allow Taiwan to use the name ROC to assert its independence nor the ROC to use Taiwan to breathe life back into the ROC. From a Taiwanese viewpoint, the independent ROC of the two Chiangs or Taiwanese independence has the same aim: to resist annexation by China. This is what a “Taiwan consensus” must be based on.
The PRC should be rejoicing. The Chiangs’ effort that was so strongly criticized by China as creating an independent ROC has, in the hands of Ma, turned into a unification effort. The reason Ma supports the ROC is not because he opposes annexation — as the two Chiangs did — but because he wants to prevent Taiwanese independence and obstruct Taiwan developing into a normal nation. Thus, despite knowing full well that the PRC has replaced the ROC and won the right to represent China, Ma still uses the idea of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” to deceive Taiwanese into believing that the PRC will tolerate the ROC — whose sovereignty stretches across the whole of China — and allow some fuzzy existence of “two Chinas.”
Reality has been quite brutal to Ma as of late. As the ROC was celebrating its centenary, the PRC started sending signals aimed at dampening his excitement. The TAO’s criticism of Tsai’s remarks as another guise of Taiwanese independence was also a reminder to Ma that cross-strait relations have never been and can never be “state-to-state” relations.
So, Mr President, given China’s statement, how can there be room for the ROC to exist and what does having your own interpretation of “one China” mean?
Translated by Drew Cameron
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