On March 27, Japan's Supreme Court reversed a second Osaka High Court ruling over the ownership of a student dormitory in Kyoto, saying Taipei had lost its right to file a claim for ownership as the representative of China when Tokyo decided in 1972 to recognize Beijing instead of the Republic of China (ROC). This verdict crushes the illusions for anyone who still tries to deal with the cross-strait issue based on a "one China" framework.
Technically, Taiwan has not lost. The Supreme Court's decision leaves room for Taiwanese ownership of the dormitory, since it only deals with the right to file a claim as the representative of China. The main reason Taipei lost this right was the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government's claim to represent China.
The second ruling, which was in favor of Taiwan's claim, was based on the fact that the ROC on Taiwan still had effective jurisdiction over part of China, and since there thus was no concern over any assets belonging to a third sovereign nation, the ROC did not lose its ownership of the dormitory. That decision, then, ruled that the ROC was qualified to bring a lawsuit, and this has later often been called "partial inheritance." The recent verdict's denial of the ROC's right to file a claim as the representative of China thus recognizes that "one China is the People's Republic of China" (PRC) and subverts any claim that there is "one China, two governments."
This ruling once again shows that the international community stands behind its "one China" consensus that "one China" refers to the PRC. Former KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) believes that the "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" dictum is a cure all for all cross-strait problems. As this idea claims the ROC can also represent China, it leads to the further suppression of Taiwan's space in the international arena and removes any legal basis for defending Taiwan's independence.
From the perspective of international law, this means that Taiwan has become the subject de jure annexation by the PRC and it also legitimizes Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law. In other words, China's de facto annexation of Taiwan is only a few steps away.
The "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" and the the "one country, two governments" dictums will also lead to other problems. If Beijing asks that property purchased in a third nation with ROC funds be transferred to its ownership based on the "one China" principle, then Taipei will not only obtain no diplomatic recognition, but national assets purchased with Taiwanese taxpayers' money could be confiscated by Beijing.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Taiwan always had to worry over whether it would be able to protect its embassy property every time a country severed diplomatic ties with Taipei. The KMT government even registered some national assets as private property to try and keep them safe. All these incidents are related to the country's past insistence on the "one China" principle. It is this insistence that has led to Taiwan's diplomatic decline and the theft of its national assets.
To avert conflict with Beijing, some China experts have been trying to think up schemes under which Taipei could accept the "one China" premise. However, if Taiwan accepts any of these suggestions, it will immediately face the possibility of China's de jure annexation.
Anyone politician with the ambition to lead Taiwan must step out of such narrow cross-strait thinking and look at the issue from an international perspective. Whether they are sucking up to the China experts or want a technical acceptance of "one China," the Japanese ruling shows that the "one China" illusion is no match for international law.
Lai I-chung is the head of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of Chinese Affairs.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Daniel Cheng
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
As Taiwan is engulfed in worries about Chinese infiltration, news reports have revealed that power inverters made by China’s Huawei Technologies Co are used in the solar panels on the top of the Legislative Yuan’s Zhenjiang House (鎮江會館) on Zhenjiang Street in Taipei. However, what is even more worrying is that Taiwan’s new national electronic identification card (eID) has been subcontracted to the French security firm and eID maker Idemia, which has not only cooperated with the Chinese Public Security Bureau to manufacture eIDs in China, but also makes the new identification cards being issued in Hong Kong. There might be more