Following the Sunflower movement, the idea of Taiwanese independence has at last lost its bad name.
Some pundits maintain that young people are simply acknowledging the “status quo,” and not seeking a declaration of independence, as Taiwan already has de facto independence, its name being the Republic of China (ROC). This reasoning is flawed and ill-informed.
It is simply not true that advocacy of independence can be considered maintaining the “status quo.” In international law, there are only two categories: The de jure state and the de facto entity. There is no such thing as a country with de facto independence. Public law theory and international practice hold that the “status quo” is that Taiwan is a de facto entity, or even a regional government, or that legally speaking, it remains a part of China. Visa exemption agreements, reciprocal judicial assistance, consular privileges, and any participation in international organizations, albeit under a different name, that Taiwan enjoys are due to allowances made unilaterally by other countries, not because these countries recognize the nation as independent.
Malcolm Evans’ International Law is very clear on the matter: Whether an entity can become a state is determined by whether that entity itself claims to be a country and wants to be recognized as such.
That is, Taiwan will never become a country until it actually declares independence.
A declaration of independence will also have the result of bidding farewell to the old system and choosing a new set of values. If this were anything short of a thorough overhaul and restructuring of the system and a psychological shift that includes transitional justice, to bring about a diverse culture and put human rights back on track, what would the point of independence be?
When in power, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) not only failed to launch an investigation into past wrongs, it even employed swathes of bureaucrats who had worked for the old totalitarian regime and were complicit in it. It also followed in many of the old ways of the previous regime, doing things such as forbidding Yoshinori Kobayashi, author of the Japanese comic book On Taiwan (台灣論), from entering the country. The DPP administration also failed to push through on the 40-year-old Guanghualiao Estate (光華寮) case thrown out of Japanese courts because the original plaintiff had the China UN seat; did not know how to respond to China’s enactment of the “Anti-Secession” law; refused to remove radioactive waste from Orchid Island (Lanyu, 蘭嶼); and shied away from renaming China Airlines, of which the state owns more than a 70 percent stake. These instances of serious violations of democratic values were the result of expediency and of maintaining the “status quo.”
Declaring independence could also give Taiwan’s disillusioned young people renewed vision and hope, and wipe away the bad press they have been given about their supposed inability to engage with the world. Who knows how many opportunities will be created for them to go out into the world and engage with the international community simply by our joining the UN?
Former colleagues of mine, more erudite than myself, from Germany, France, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, are now all posted overseas or hold positions as department heads in UN institutions. Will young Taiwanese be afforded such opportunities by relying on the independence the nation has in the “status quo”?
Chris Huang is an associate professor in National Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Law for Science and Technology.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing