Pope John Paul II recently urged Beijing to "normalize relations" between China and the Vatican. Meanwhile, former Italian prime minister, Giulio Andreotti, who is in charge of diplomatic policy for the Holy See, stated that the Vatican could follow the "Wash-ington model" of establishing full diplomatic relations with Beijing, but at the same time maintaining "certain relations" with Taiwan.
These words aroused fears in Taiwan that relations with the Vatican could be severed.
For many years, I have studied the foreign relations and legal system of the Holy See, and I present the following observations for reference.
First, since the Holy See signed the Lateran treaty with Italy in 1929, it has been recognized around the world as a sovereign country -- the Vatican City State. In 1961, the Vienna Diplomatic Convention also recognized that the Holy See, like other sovereign countries, had the authority to post and receive diplomatic envoys. At present, the Holy See has envoys in 172 countries.
What is particularly worthy of attention in Taiwan, however, is that in the Holy See's view, the envoys it has sent to each country represent not only the recognition of diplomatic relations, but also the tie of ecclesiastical relations between the Catholic Church and that country.
The primary reason for this is that the Holy See is not just a sovereign country in the secular sense. It is also a nation to which 700 million Catholics around the world belong to in spirit.
Looking carefully at the content of the Pope's recent statements about China, we see that he only said the Vatican hopes it can reestablish channels for dialogue with Beijing and by this means build a relationship of understanding and mutual respect. From this we can see that the relationship the Pope wants to establish with Beijing is one primarily based on religious considerations. The Vatican hopes that Beijing can recognize the legal existence of Catholicism in China and that Catholics can spread the Gospel without being persecuted.
Regrettably, the Beijing authorities were unwilling to accept the Vatican's goodwill. They demanded as a front that the Holy See first break off diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but actually they were unwilling to see their "Catholic Patriotic Church," which they prop up, constrained by the Holy See.
Thus, even if the Vatican intends to establish formal diplomatic relations and religious ties with Beijing, the two sides are still in disagreement over the "Patriotic Church" and no solution to the impasse is likely to be found in the near future.
In the long term, if the differences between the Holy See and Beijing are resolved, the two sides could possibly establish formal relations.
The Holy See's envoys don't have the usual titles of ambassador, minister and so on. They have their own unique diplomatic titles. The title "Apostolic Nuncio" is used for ambassadors with the status of archbishop and "Apostolic Pro-Nuncio" is used for ambassadors without the status of archbishop.
Especially worthy of notice is the third rank of the Holy See's ambassadors, the "Apostolic Delegates." This title is given to those envoys stationed in countries that do not have formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See. Delegates represent only the religious relations between the Vatican and the Catholic Church in the country where they are stationed. How-ever, according to the stipulations of the Vienna Diplomatic Convention, they still have the status of diplomatic personnel.
What Andreotti called the "Washington model" of maintaining "certain relations" with Taipei would amount to posting an Apostolic Delegate with diplomatic status to Taiwan. Although this arrangement certainly isn't something we would wish for, the envoy currently posted to Taiwan to represent diplomatic relations with the Holy See has the status of "charge d'affaires," a rank even lower than an Apostolic Delegate.
At this moment, as the red light of diplomatic ties between China and the Vatican flashes, I hope our diplomatic authorities can grasp the above information and maintain flexibility in order to preserve diplomatic ties with the Holy See and preserve the dignity of the nation.
Paul Liu is a licensed California attorney and an assistant professor in the department of finance at Lunghwa University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS