An article published in Bloomberg Businessweekreported that the US intends to tell China it is, under the principle of the succession of states, liable for the debt of sovereign bonds issued during the Qing Dynasty through the period of the Beiyang Government of the Republic of China (ROC) and the Republican period.
Chinese state media have said that foreign countries should look for repayment of any debt from the ROC established by Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙). That would presumably mean the ROC government of Taiwan.
According to the Legislative Yuan’s Legal Information Network, there are still 44 government bonds issued prior to 1949, of which 35, including those issued by the City Government of Greater Shanghai, were temporarily suspended by the Legislative Yuan in 1973. They were not canceled altogether, in line with Article 19 of the Central Regulation Standard Act (中央法規標準法). There are an additional nine foreign currency gold or railway bonds that have yet to be dealt with, including the 1934 Six Percent British Boxer Indemnity Government Bond.
Article 26-1 of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) states that “for any payment owed by the government in the Mainland Area and due in accordance with laws or regulations prior to 1949, in situations where the beneficiary is yet to receive any or full payment, no claim shall be processed before national unification.”
Article 63 of the same act stipulates that “the following debts shall not be repaid prior to national unification: One: Outstanding foreign currency bonds issued in the Mainland prior to 1949 and the short-term Gold Bonds of 1949. Two: Various debts owed by any government bank as well as any other financial institution accepting deposits before their retreat from the Mainland.”
The ROC government has yet to cancel liability for the payment of these debts, keeping open a path to possible legal unification.
However, does this approach mean that the ROC is in the clear? If these government bonds were to be repaid in line with their conditions, with inflation and interest factored in, it would empty Taiwan’s state coffers. In 1953, the Ministry of Finance proposed canceling 56 government bonds, 28 of which were canceled the following year. Legislators at the time had warned that keeping the bonds would create a crisis in state finances. If they were to be paid back in full, the government would have to legislate an alternative method.
For advocates of immediate unification with China, the retention of these 44 government-issued bonds throws a spanner in the works of their “grand unification undertaking,” given that Beijing refuses to acknowledge liability for the debts of the ROC. For advocates of eventual unification, the stipulation that the debts are to be paid at such time as both sides of the Taiwan Strait are unified also presents a problem, as China does not acknowledge them.
If the ROC government on Taiwan goes bankrupt paying the debts, Taiwanese can kiss their pensions goodbye. Under these circumstances, few would support unification.
Neither will independence advocates be happy. The bonds were issued by the ROC regime while still in China, so why should Taiwanese be liable for them, especially as the construction projects and railways they financed are all in China, benefiting Chinese?
To safeguard the state coffers and the interests of Taiwanese, the government needs to propose legislation to cancel these 44 bonds. Surely, the legal representative of China should be liable for paying off China’s historical debt.
Lee Jowquen teaches civics at a Taipei high school.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers