After adding the word "Taiwan" to the Presidential Office's Web site last week, President Chen Shui-bian (
Because the name ROC includes the word "republic," it is easily mistaken to mean that the ROC is a state.
However, the name ROC initially symbolized a government or a dynasty, and it was also the official name for China.
After the People's Republic of China (PRC) replaced the ROC as the ruler of China, the only remaining meaning was "government," with the other meanings being supplanted by the PRC. This now means that the PRC is China and China is the PRC.
The ROC only remains as the government's name and its organization. It no longer has the original sense of "state."
Chen is being polite when he describes the second stage of his theory as the ROC "moving" to Taiwan, when it in fact was exiled here and proceeded to -- without passing through any democratic or legal procedures -- begin to occupy Taiwan and Penghu after Japan gave up its claims in a treaty.
In 1971, the UN decided to expel the delegate representing president Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) regime and proclaimed that the PRC was the legitimate representative of China. Afterward, Chiang's son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) began implementing limited localization and promotion of Taiwanese. Taiwan was thus used to fill the empty ROC shell, and the ROC began its transformation toward becoming Taiwan.
Former president Lee Teng-hui's (
In 1999, Lee proposed his "special state to state" model for cross-strait relations, clearly defining the ROC as a "state" rather than a "government." Since both the PRC and the ROC are states, with neither having any jurisdiction over the other, this is clearly a matter of two different countries.
A majority in the international community do not recognize the ROC because they do not view it as a state, but rather as the name of a government that has been replaced by the PRC. If the national title remains unchanged and if we want to maintain that Taiwan or the ROC is a sovereign state, there are only two approaches to altering the definition of the ROC.
First, that Taiwan is a sovereign state whose national title is the ROC. Second, that the ROC is a sovereign state whose territory is limited to the Taiwan region and the sovereignty belongs to the 23 million Taiwanese.
Chen's four-stage theory defines the ROC as a state, but in using territory and population to define the scope of this state, he makes the ROC Taiwan. This is in response to the fact that while the national title "ROC" cannot be altered at this stage, most people believe that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Since any sudden change is impossible, this is a necessary and natural development.
Shen Chieh is a political commentator based in Washington.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS