It is like a soccer match. Whenever a country breaks off diplomatic relations, people react as if a goal has been scored against Taiwanese independence, and everyone is forced to imagine the day when Taiwan is left with no diplomatic partners at all.
However, it also takes Taiwan one step closer to the day when the nation is called “Taiwan” and not some other title.
A few days ago, the Republic of China (ROC) was hugging 18 cushions, but now there is one fewer, and it feels a little less cozy.
Over the past few years, the trend of countries cutting diplomatic ties with the ROC has sped up.
However, the more countries cut ties, the more it is highlighted that Taiwan should be known by its own name.
Taiwan’s few remaining diplomatic partners are only symbolic, since they wield no real influence. The day will soon arrive when there are no more cushions to lean on.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) talks about preserving the “status quo,” but it cannot be preserved if the other side does not want to.
If China does not play ball and Taiwan’s diplomatic partners stop supporting it, things can only go from bad to worse.
Why do countries keep cutting ties? Actually, the ROC brought it upon itself.
In the past, everyone blamed former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) for insisting that “gentlemen cannot stand beside scoundrels.”
However, since the end of martial law in 1987, the ROC has been punching above its weight. Instead of adjusting its foreign relations policies to fit the international situation, it has stuck to the Chiang regime’s “one China” policy and kept walking down the path wrongly chosen under Chiang’s authoritarian dictatorship.
Although the reins of government have been handed to and fro between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party, neither, for the sake of the so-called “highest common denominator,” has altered this course. They insist that preserving the “status quo” is the only way to maintain peace.
Wrong assumptions will surely lead to unwanted results.
While both sides of the Taiwan Strait — the ROC and the People’s Republic of China — hold to the consensus of the “one China” policy, no matter who interprets “China” and how they interpret it, the ROC will end up with no diplomatic partners.
Taiwanese are perhaps the friendliest people in the world, so what kind of foreign relations have put Taiwan in such a bind? Tsai needs to answer this question. When preserving the “status quo” cannot serve Taiwan’s best interests, how should Taiwan play its cards?
Or does Tsai plan to just sit there until the ROC drops dead? It is one route to independence, but why should taxpayers pay so much to employ a public servant who does nothing?
For a nation to wait until it has no diplomatic partners left, so that it has no choice but to be independent, would certainly be a historic first, but perhaps the best response to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) head-on charge is using soft power against hard power.
Before long, Taiwan will have no choice but to be independent, and it will all be Xi’s doing.
When the time comes, the Taiwanese independence movement should thank Xi for his contribution, since only he can score the winning goal for Taiwanese independence.
No need to boo, then, when the ROC loses diplomatic partners — it would be better to cheer instead.
Liou Uie-liang is the author of a book about what Taiwan can learn from Germany.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US