Minister of Economic Affairs Lin Yi-fu (
Taiwan will no longer accept names like "Separate Customs Territory of Taipei, Penghu, Kin-men and Matsu" (TPKM) or "Chi-nese Taipei," Lin said. Meanwhile, Taiwan's FTA talks with Singapore have run aground because the government would not accept the name TPKM in the agreement.
It is deplorable that the FTA talks have run aground, but the people of Taiwan should be asking whether the government has wisely sought optimum benefit for the country during the negotiation.
Lin said TPKM blurs Taiwan's status, and that "economic entity" can at least nevertheless highlight the nation's sovereignty even though it does not signify a politically independent entity.
Is this judgment objective or subjective?
The term "separate customs territory" came from the article on accession to the WTO and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Article XXXIII of the GATT stipulates, "... a government acting on behalf of a separate customs territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this Agreement, may accede to this Agreement ... on behalf of that territory, on terms to be agreed between such government and the Contracting Parties." Apparently, in the GATT accession article, "government" is the subject filing for application and "separate customs territory" is the operating unit.
The WTO inherited this functional accession rule from the GATT. Article 12 of the agreement says: "Any State or separate customs territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements may accede to this Agreement."
Moreover, the "Explanatory Notes" of the Marrakesh Agreement say, "The terms `country' or `countries' as used in this Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements are to be understood to include any separate customs territory Member of the WTO." Therefore, all members, be they "countries" or "separate customs territories," are full and equal members after they join the WTO.
According to GATT/WTO articles, TPKM has an independent and complete legal status. The WTO Agreement and its annexes are part of the international law created by treaties. Therefore, the legal status of TPKM has a basis in international law.
But why does our government feel that TPKM blurs the nation's status? I believe this is because Beijing has constantly claimed that China joined the WTO as a country, but Taiwan joined as a separate customs territory, so Taiwan is "China's" separate customs territory -- thereby making the government feel that TPKM has given Beijing something to exploit.
But isn't it a remake of Beijing's three-part argument, "There is only one China in the world -- the People's Republic of China; Tai-wan is part of China; therefore, Taiwan is part of the PRC?" We can ignore China's three-part argument. Why should we abandon TPKM because of Beijing's three-part WTO argument?
Our government applied for GATT accession in 1990 and faced Beijing's many attempts at obstruction. After Taiwan's application for GATT/WTO membership gained widespread support, Beijing still attempted to add "China's" to the name "the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu."
Beijing did not succeed even though it applied great pressure. Why? Because WTO members based their considerations on their own economic interests, and it would be in their best interest if both sides of the Taiwan Strait joined the WTO. And the GATT/WTO legal basis was exactly what allowed them to resist Beijing's pressure in an upstanding manner.
The entire world knows that Beijing's arguments had no legal basis, but why we are still feeling hurt and mired in self-pity?
"Economic entity" may sound like having more individualistic character, but there is no such term in international law. Seeking this name is undoubtedly a matter of subjective, wishful thinking.
Being small, Taiwan can only hope to use wisdom to outmaneuver the giant of China, which holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and is growing stronger economically by the day. All countries in the international community seek their own self-interest. We must strengthen their capacity to resist Beijing.
In terms of objective international law, Taiwan joined the WTO as the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu," and the WTO allows members to sign free-trade agreements separately. Isn't the "separate customs territory" the most advantageous term for these countries to resist Beijing's pressure?
Taiwan joined the WTO after so much effort, and official contact on economic and trade matters is no longer rejected. But amid regional integration and a wave of free-trade agreements, Taiwan is once again facing the danger of being marginalized. Seeking a name that has individuality is certainly an ideal, but if we can more quickly benefit by using a name that has a perfect legal basis under international law, why shouldn't it be a blessing for the people?
Cho Hui-wan is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of International Politics at National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS