It was heartening to see high-ranking officials from the US and the UK publicly countering Beijing’s military threats against Taiwan after Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) early this month said that China reserved the right to use force to bring Taiwan into its fold.
Still, the foreign officials, however friendly they might be, missed one crucial point, which the Democratic Progressive Party government unfortunately failed to act on and assert Taiwan’s sovereignty in the international arena.
US National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis on Jan. 6 tweeted: “The US rejects threats or the use of force to compel the people of Taiwan. Any resolution of Cross-Strait differences must be peaceful and based on the will of the ppl on both sides.”
Separately, British Minister of State for the Commonwealth and UN Tariq Ahmad on Jan. 14 said: “In line with our long-standing position on Taiwan, we encourage Taiwan and China to engage in constructive dialogue to resolve this issue, taking into account the views of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.”
The Presidential Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly expressed their gratitude to the officials, adding that Taiwan would continue to work with like-minded nations to ensure peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
While the government’s response represented Taiwanese’s peace-loving nature and the nation’s willingness to work for regional peace and prosperity, it failed to clarify Taiwanese’s right to self-determination.
The problem with the foreign officials’ remarks is: Why does Taiwan’s future have to be “based on the will of the people on both sides” of the Strait?
Article 2 of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution states that “the sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens,” who are described in Article 3 as “persons possessing the nationality of the Republic of China.”
Therefore, only people who hold ROC citizenship can decide the nation’s future, not the citizens of the People’s Republic of China.
By staying mum on remarks that suggest that the nation’s future should be determined jointly by Taiwanese and Chinese, the government has unwittingly allowed the international community to disregard Taiwan’s existence as a sovereign state.
Would Singapore’s future be based on the will of Malaysians? Should Burmese decisionmakers take into account the views of people in Thailand? The answer is obviously no, as each of those countries is a sovereign state that is neither dependent on nor subjected to another country.
Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, and the suggestion that Taiwan take into account the views of 1.42 billion Chinese is ludicrous — not to mention unconstitutional and grossly negligent of Taiwanese public opinion.
A survey conducted by National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center in April last year showed 85.6 percent of respondents saying that the future of Taiwan and cross-strait relations should be collectively decided by the 23 million Taiwanese.
As citizens of a sovereign state, Taiwanese have the right to determine their own future. This power must not be usurped and the government must make sure that no country ever dreams of seizing Taiwanese’s hard-won rights and freedoms.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS