Taiwan’s recent diplomatic quandaries, notably the severance of ties with the Solomon Islands and Kiribati, are serious problems that must be addressed — to the extent they could be addressed at all. To be sure, with fully six allies having withdrawn recognition of Taiwan in the past two years, the nation of Taiwan faces a near-emergency.
Of course, this is a decades-old issue, and virtually every other country worldwide has done the same thing in the past 60 years. Thus, it is not really surprising, and it is a challenge that Taiwan must regularly face. Taiwan’s remaining 15 allies find themselves in a ticklish position, “supporting” a country (the Republic of China, ROC) that few other nations do, one which has largely been cast in the dustbin of history. What is Taiwan able to do?
We should note here that what the six nations have done with Taiwan in the past few years is their perfect right and prerogative. Claims that they should be punished — and the US is at the forefront here — are brazen and in essence illegal (call it interfering in another state’s internal affairs).
What they have done is perfectly lawful, hard though it might be to face and considered a good idea by many. Critics of these moves treat them as if they are negligible affairs, and such an attitude is disrespectful to nation-states worldwide. These nations are making serious decisions about international diplomatic affairs, and they must be treated with dignity in so doing. This insistence on retribution is shameless and must be abrogated.
To be sure, Taiwan’s situation looks dire. It seems likely that many other countries might do what other recent countries have done (and as well what the other 178 UN members have done). In the end, Taiwan could be left with no diplomatic allies.
Taiwan might one day find itself in this position — there might be no other option. This is an uncomfortable reality to face, but perhaps not without a solution, as to be examined below.
Taiwan as a nation has very little status in the world, and the ROC is doing no better. Yes, this seems odd in terms of the reality of the nation of Taiwan, a country with culture, history, peoples/ethnicities, languages, geography, world trade, laws, customs, norms, identity and a functioning government (with all of its associated necessities of nationhood).
The simple reality is that this nation does function as just that in the international system, and few other countries would doubt this. Indeed, many another country has taken the ultimate step and “recognized” Taiwan as just this in the world (the US comes that close, as do many others).
However, this does not alter the reality of Taiwan’s diminishing role and connection in world affairs. A country with no diplomatic allies, after all, could hardly be called a country at all. There are a handful of such counties in the world right now (the Republic of South Ossetia, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Republic of Somaliland come to mind).
There have been observers in Taiwan who have said that allies do not matter much anyway, and in any case, the cost of maintaining the few allies that Taiwan has left — most of them underdeveloped and impoverished — is not worth it.
These people argue that losing diplomatic allies is tolerable, and in the same light it would not be the end of the world for Taiwan if its diplomatic allies dropped to zero, as long as it has the support of world powers such as the US, the EU and Japan.
This is not being fully explained, and the cold reality of this happening is not being squarely faced. While no doubt important, the above entities are only three powers, and if the other hundreds of UN member states still refuse to recognize Taiwan, then that is not significant progress.
What would it really mean if Taiwan were reduced to zero? Could it continue to survive at all? It seems that it would not be much like survival, but one wonders if Taiwan could launch a new model of diplomatic concurrence, becoming a one-off, stand-alone entity that, yes, does not even need the recognition of others. It could still function as an independent state in the world (some would say this is essentially the nation’s position now).
Quite frankly, I rather like this idea, and the introduction of an innovative new paradigm of international diplomacy could be a bold move by Taiwan. This might evolve into something of the stateless world, populated by “world citizens,” who have abandoned those often labored, synthetic attachments to home nations, an idea that has created endless conflict in the world and given rise to jingoistic and populist/nationalist risings.
Such an idea might alter the very idea of the UN, and we might find ourselves modifying relations into a new UM, from the French Union Mondiale (Global Union).
There are states even now that hardly count as states as such, but they are recognized by hundreds of UN members: the State of Palestine and the Republic of Kosovo, for example. Thus, it could be true that a “stateless state” could be deeply involved in international affairs (which most would say is true of Taiwan even now). Jilted nationalism stains these populations as much as any other state/country, and that is an effect we hope could be moderated and one day eliminated.
With these problems in mind, one suggested move has been for the US to re-establish formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, proposed by former premier Yu Shyi-kun (游錫堃) on Sept. 14. This is an absurd idea, not least because it would violate US law.
Yu said he “believes under [US President Donald] Trump, Taiwan has its highest chance to see the US officially recognize it, as Trump is a non-traditionalist who is not afraid of changing the ‘status quo’ to serve US interests.”
Possibly true, and something that Trump might indeed attempt to do. However, this would be a one-off move by the president and would not represent any particular concordance at all.
There is no chance such an action could take place, and only a handful of the most fervent Taiwan supporters in the US government could think of suggesting such a thing. The US Congress and Senate would never agree to it, and the very idea of severing ties with China — which would have to happen in turn — is outrageous and no doubt impossible.
I hope the above description could be seen in a positive light in Taiwan. The situation might look dire on the surface, and for that reason alone, a new approach might be called for. Taiwan might be faced with “going it alone” in the future, but maybe that is not the worst possible outcome. Let the UM begin today.
David Pendery is an associate professor at National Taipei University of Business.
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