Outer Mongolia is not part of ROC territory. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is plainly delusional, given that the rest of the world, including the PRC, recognizes the area as the Mongolian People's Republic -- Mongolia for short -- and the country has been a member of the UN since 1961. So why has the Executive Yuan's removal of Outer Mongolia from the government's definition of "Mainland Area" (
Critics of the move can be roughly divided into two groups. First, there are the die-hard fanatics of "Great China" nationalism. In their heart, any territory that was once under China's rule should forever remain part of the sacred "motherland." This group is blithely indifferent to the disparity in languages, cultures and religions of the people in these regions. And it certainly doesn't matter whether these people want to be "Chinese." Any talk of the the territory not being part of China is deemed blasphemy. That is the case with Tibet, East Turkestan, Outer Mongolia and it is certainly the case with Taiwan.
These fanatics used to long for the day when the KMT government would retake China. Now, they pin their hopes on unification. This is so that "Great China" can once again be whole again. But the "Great China" they fantasize about can never be again, with or without unification, given the PRC's recognition of Mongolia. Even if the ROC ruled the mainland, Outer Mongolia would not be part of its territory or under its rule. So what is the purpose of retaining a place named Outer Mongolia in the "Mainland area" in the ROC?
The second group includes those who question the constitutionality or the legality of the government's move. The Constitution defines ROC territory to be "[the country's] existing territory." The vagueness and absurdity of this definition is self-evident. Nevertheless, this group argues that the government's move is unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment on the definition of ROC territory. However, this group is split between those who argue that the Constitution's definition means the Chinese territory that existed at the time of the founding of the ROC in 1912 and those who say the Sino-Russian treaty, under which the referendum for Mongolian independence was carried out, had no legal force.
Then there are those broadminded people -- perhaps awake is a more accurate term -- who say that the whole question was actually settled a long time ago. These people argue that the Constitution's vague definition means Chinese territory existing when the present Constitution came into force in 1947. The ROC government officially recognized the Mongolian People's Republic in 1945. So this group of people argues the whole debate is moot.
It would take more than the wisdom of Solomon to sort this feud out. Even the Council of Grand Justices is adopting a hands-off policy -- ruling that the issue is a political question rather than a legal one.
However, since the highest legal minds in the land have washed their hands of the issue, it is good that the Executive Yuan pragmatically decided to handle the matter itself. Taiwan can no longer go on claiming sovereignty where none exists -- isn't that the complaint lodged against the government in Beijing? It is time such an absurd situation was ended.
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS