China has long claimed that Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory.
The Chinese government has regularly demonized anyone who has advanced an alternative point of view, even when those points are backed by international law.
However, in a rather ironic fashion, China’s government made a strong argument for Taiwan’s self-determination in 2009.
Beijing posited that the doctrine of self-determination is a right in certain circumstances based on international law arising in two different geopolitical circumstances in history: territories under foreign rule and those under colonial rule.
While the right to self-determination has expanded since that time, it is worth looking at the merits of Beijing’s argument.
The Chinese government asserted that the people of territories under foreign rule have the right to self-determination. That right arose out of former US president Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” speech and was enshrined in some specific instances in the Treaty of Versailles.
While imperfectly implemented, it gave several peoples under the rule of alien neighbors the right to decide which state they wanted to be a part of.
In some instances, these territories had been ceded to larger, more powerful neighbors prior to World War I.
Another assertion made by Beijing was that the doctrine also arose from those seeking freedom from colonial rule. Beijing’s argument here is that colonies of imperialistic powers had the right to self-determination.
While this development came decades after the genesis of the concept of self-determination in modern international law, the argument is still valid because during the 1950s and 1960s, former colonies became independent of their mostly European colonial overlords and began to chart their own courses.
Looking at history, and specifically Taiwan’s status during the 20th century, there are clear parallels. Taiwan was under foreign rule from the time of the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 until the time of the Republic of China Occupation on behalf of the Allied powers, beginning in October 1945.
As Taiwan was under foreign rule, does not this meet Beijing’s criteria for self-determination?
There is debate as to whether Taiwan was a colony of Japan. Administratively, it was not.
However, in other ways it certainly met the standards that many would use to regard Taiwan as a colony of Imperial Japan.
With this in mind, would this not also meet Beijing’s declared standard for self-determination?
China’s government made these arguments for self-determination in both written arguments and oral statements before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the advisory opinion over Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
While the ICJ upheld the legality of the declaration, it failed to address some of the other issues brought up not only by China, but also by the US and other nations that made presentations to the court, a fact lamented by at least two other judges on the court.
China’s arguments before the court strongly buttress the legal right of Taiwan and its people to pursue a course of self-determination.
Surely, the irony of China’s argument must be lost on it, but it is very clear that Taiwan meets China’s own declared historical and legal criteria.
It is clear by Beijing’s own statements that its ideology is consistent with Taiwan’s right to determine its own future.
Michael Le Houllier is the co-founder of the Central Taiwan Model UN.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS