Beijing’s continued policy of enticing Taiwan’s diplomatic allies away claimed a new victim on Tuesday, when the government was obliged to sever ties with El Salvador, having learned it was planning to switch allegiance to China.
The timing of the event, one day after President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) return from a state visit to Paraguay and Belize, is consistent with Beijing’s policy of punishing Tsai for refusing to accept the so-called “1992 consensus,” which it considers to be integral to the cross-strait “status quo.”
The “status quo” is a nebulous concept that suffers from being ill-defined by the US and clearly defined — albeit in radically different ways — by Beijing and Taipei.
US support for Taiwan does not extend to support for independence, but it does extend to protection from invasion by China, so long as Taiwan makes no moves to unilaterally change the “status quo.” This stance has been criticized as being aimed at controlling the problem rather than solving it.
First is the problem of definition. The US, committed to acknowledging that Beijing believes Taiwan to be part of China — as part of its “one China” policy, while not actually recognizing Beijing’s “one China” principle — would like to continue ties with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole representative of China, while maintaining engagement and unofficial ties with Taiwan.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) agrees there is “one China,” yet differs on who represents that “one China.” Its official position is that the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan does, while tacitly recognizing that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on China shares this aspiration.
Implicit within this is the idea of two “Chinas,” existing in parallel universes until such time as the question of the correct interpretation is resolved.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) views the “status quo” as entailing the existence of two sovereign nations.
The CCP insists that Taiwan and China are part of the same country, albeit not yet unified. From this perspective, Beijing’s aggressive provocations, such as its military build-up, drills clearly purposed for Taiwan invasion-readiness, frequent military fly-bys, thousands of missiles aimed at Taiwan, the theft of diplomatic allies and the enactment of an “Anti-Secession” Law are all consistent with maintaining the “status quo.”
During the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the US was wary of the 2003 Referendum Act (公民投票法) and Chen’s plans to hold a defensive referendum. Chen was adamant that such a referendum was necessary to preserve Taiwan’s sovereignty, and thereby maintaining the “status quo” as defined by the DPP.
He believed that the government should build a vigorous defensive force to ensure that the “status quo” was maintained. This is something that Tsai is pursuing, too, with promises to reinforce Taiwan’s defensive capabilities.
The second problem is dynamism. Domestic politics and international relations are never static.
Could the development of democracy on Taiwan be interpreted as a unilateral changing of the “status quo”?
Prior to Taiwan’s democratization, both sides of the Taiwan Strait were ruled by totalitarian states. The annexation of Taiwan at that point would have been easier.
Yet, what were former presidents Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) and Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) to do? Maintain the nation in a cocoon-like stasis to ensure the smooth handover to the communists, whom the KMT — at least back then — still regarded as mortal enemies?
From Taiwan’s point of view, the theft of diplomatic allies is limiting advocacy for it in international forums, as it is not allowed to participate. That, surely, is also messing with the “status quo.”
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past