Academia Historica President Chen Yi-shen (陳儀深) has talked about the historical basis for a shared destiny of Taiwan proper, Penghu, Matsu and Kinmen. This is a historical interpretation seen from a Taiwanese perspective. International law has a different interpretation.
Since the Republic of China (ROC) was divested of its UN seat in 1971 by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, Taiwan has been reduced to using the name “Chinese Taipei” at international events. The WTO uses the name “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.”
The WTO is the only international organization to combine Taiwan and Penghu with Kinmen and Matsu, which, after all, have differing statuses under international law. Taiwan and Penghu are firmly within the territory of the ROC, while Kinmen and Matsu were handed to the ROC as a caretaker government by the Allies after World War II.
They are all under the control of a single government, whether that government is called “the ROC,” as in the ROC Constitution, or the “governing authorities on Taiwan,” as it says in the US’ Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
The islands in question constitute two sets of territories of differing legal status under the jurisdiction of a single government.
Under international law, a fairly simple comparison of this would be pre-handover Hong Kong. Before 1997, the New Territories belonged to China and the Kowloon Peninsula and Hong Kong Island belonged to the British, but all were governed under the jurisdiction of the British, as a British Dependent Territory of the UK. Hong Kong has continued to have a seat in the WTO.
The protests over the proposed extradition law continue in Hong Kong and there are now calls for independence. According to independence advocates, had Beijing not asked the UN to remove Hong Kong from its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1972, the year after China regained its seat at the UN, the people of the Hong Kong colony might have had the right to a referendum in the 1960s, while still under British rule. Apparently, the New Territories’ territorial status had a significant impact on Hong Kong’s future.
For Taiwan, the scope of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, effective from 1955 to 1979, was limited to Taiwan and Penghu, to avoid any accusations of US military interference in Chinese territory. However, on January 1955, the US Congress also passed the Formosa Resolution, giving the US president the power to safeguard “territories in the West Pacific under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China.”
The US government subsequently announced its resolve to protect Taiwan from attack by the communists, even though the territories to be protected were not explicitly stated. Had this resolution not been passed, the “shared destiny” of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu might not be under discussion.
This resolution also allowed the US to circumvent the issue of interfering with Chinese domestic affairs through the concept of territories being occupied by a government commissioned to do so by the Allies. The area designated as Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu was not under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China, and the ROC on Taiwan was not the same as pre-1949 China.
Today, the US is implementing the spirit of that resolution through the TRA and four other pieces of legislation.
Both Hong Kong and Taiwan have gone through times of prosperity and stability, and of being buffeted by the winds of history. Now, one is striving to achieve democracy, while the other is trying to defend it. To what extent does destiny play a part in this?
Ou Wei-chun is a company chief legal officer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry