On Oct. 3, coinciding with the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, newly elected Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven announced that his government would recognize the state of Palestine.
A review of Palestinian history shows that the international community approved its establishment as a state long ago.
In 1947, the UN General Assembly recommended that the UK, as the mandatory power in Palestine, implement a partition plan that would divide greater Palestine into three entities — an Arab state, a Jewish state and a “special international regime for the city of Jerusalem.”
However, while the state of Israel was quickly established, the processes of setting up the Arab state and the regime in Jerusalem were interrupted by war.
The UN General Assembly recognized Palestinian sovereignty in November 2012 and more than 100 countries now recognize Palestine. However, Sweden is the first current EU member state to have done so. This makes Sweden’s decision highly significant. Israel’s frenzied onslaught against Palestinian civilians during the past few months prompted Sweden to reconsider its policy.
In announcing the move, Lofven said: “The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be solved with a two-state solution, negotiated in accordance with international law. A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful coexistence. Sweden will therefore recognize the state of Palestine.”
Lofven’s use of the terms “two-state solution” and “mutual recognition” to describe prospective relations between Israel and Palestine highlights that, while the international community keeps pressing Israel and Palestine to sit down together and resolve their disputes, they ignore t that negotiations between a non-state and a state can only be a sham.
Under such circumstances, Palestine cannot arrive at what diplomatic language so attractively terms a “two-state solution.”
As the victor in the Pacific theater in World War II, the US became the custodian of Taiwan’s freedom. In 1972, in order to end the Vietnam War and normalize relations with China, the US irresponsibly signed the Shanghai Communique with Beijing, agreeing that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait” should settle their differences by themselves. Since then, the US has repeatedly used arms sales as a carrot and stick to encourage the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to handle their disputes through negotiations.
However, one of the two sides is an internationally recognized state, while the other is not, and one of them is much bigger than the other. These disparities make negotiations between China and Taiwan even more of a sham than those between Israel and Palestine.
Although Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty by the UK was arranged through negotiations between two evenly matched sovereign states, China has broken its promises, and its oppression of Hong Kong has led to the protests we now see.
What can the US do to transform cross-strait talks, which are even more difficult than talks between Israel and Palestine, into genuine negotiations? What can be done to prevent the kind of outcome now happening in Hong Kong?
If Taiwan’s leaders agree to Beijing’s every demand and forge ahead with negotiations, the US would not have time to do anything about it. That is the true face of the “non-state-to-state” relationship that exists between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS