Few would deny that former minister of foreign affairs Mark Chen (陳唐山) is a member of the pro-Taiwanese independence old guard.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would certainly agree that he is — which is why it has blacklisted him — as would independence advocates living in the US, the US government and the US Congress, which he addressed as a representative of World United Formosans for Independence.
THE ‘STATUS QUO’
It was for this reason that members of the new wave of independence advocates raised their eyebrows when Chen told US media that maintaining the cross-strait “status quo” is a way to protect the nation and that mentioning independence is a step too far.
The new wave of independence supporters believe that President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) policy of maintaining the cross-strait “status quo” was the reason for her drubbing in the recent local elections.
However, one Washington Post columnist visiting Taiwan said that everywhere he went, it seemed that everybody he met supported the “status quo,” just as Chen had.
NAMES ARE NOT ENOUGH
It goes without saying that it is entirely legitimate and reasonable to dispose of an imposed national title — if there were not a high price to pay for doing so.
However, it would be misguided to presume that simply changing the name of a country would gain that country official recognition.
The reason that Taiwan’s independent status has failed to secure it recognition as a country is purely political in nature: It has little to do with the name itself.
For 30 years, the US refused to recognize the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that had established itself in China, continuing to recognize instead the exiled government of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, while not recognizing that the latter’s territory extended to China.
The name of the country was not a factor in deciding whether to recognize the legitimacy of a government.
However, the continuation of the “status quo” could become an important consideration of whether or not to recognize a country.
When the US abandoned the ROC in favor of establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC, then-US president Jimmy Carter expected the KMT to surrender within three or four years — perhaps seven or eight years at the most. With that, the “Taiwan problem” would have been resolved.
Over the four decades that have passed since then, the exiled ROC government has been transformed into a representative, legitimate constitutional government and, over the past 20 years, calls for the US to recognize Taiwan’s status have gradually become louder.
RECOGNITION
That Taiwan’s status remains unrecognized is not the fault of Taiwan: It is because the US and the international community have capitulated to China.
With the long-term maintenance of the “status quo,” coupled with China’s refusal to act in accordance with international norms and its hegemonic ambitions, the time is now ripe for the US to re-examine when would be the appropriate time to recognize Taiwan’s national status.
For 40 years now, the US has failed to officially recognize a political entity that legally belongs to no other country and which has consistently maintained an independent existence. That, my friends, is a step too far.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS