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.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS