Rocking the ‘status quo’
On Wednesday last week, Sao Tome and Principe severed formal ties with Taiwan, some say as a result of China’s response to President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) recent telephone call with US president-elect Donald Trump and his questioning of the “one China” principle. China warned that more could follow.
However, Taiwanese do not seem overly concerned with this prospect.
There is surely something wrong if a nation does not care about its diplomatic partners. It could be explained by saying that Taiwanese recognize the diplomatic relations are between other nations and the exiled government of the Republic of China (ROC), and not Taiwan, which few other nations recognize as a nation. In the diplomatic tug-of-war between the ROC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), those partners could even be seen as historical obstacles to the normalization of Taiwan.
Taiwan is not the ROC, nor is it part of China: it was ceded to the Japanese by the Qing emperor in 1895 under the Treaty of Shimonoseki and Japan renounced all rights, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores on Sept. 8, 1951, effective as of April 28, 1952 under the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
US Congress arranged the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) in 1979 to help US maintain peace, security and stability in the western Pacific region; and to promote the foreign policy of the US by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural and other relations between the people of the US and the people on Taiwan. It is a clear implementation of US policy with regard to Taiwan that the US president is directed to inform Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan.
The TRA officially ceased to recognize the ROC, and only recognizes the government as the governing authorities in Taiwan. That should have been the end of the exiled ROC government in Taiwan.
Every US president since then has complied with the TRA in their dealings with Taiwan. On Dec. 16, US President Barack Obama defended the “status quo,” saying that Taiwanese had benefited from it, and added: “Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they are able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy, that they won’t charge forward and declare independence.”
He also urged his successor to beware of provoking a “very significant” response from Beijing over Taiwan.
Obama clearly interpreted the TRA in line with former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) naive personal view of Taiwan being part of China.
Trump has asked why he could not accept a phone call from Tsai and why the US should be bound by a “one China” policy. On Nov. 30, 1950, the UN Security Council rejected the official representative of the PRC Wu Xiuquan’s (伍修權) accusation that the US invaded its territory, Taiwan. The US has never recognized Taiwan as part of China.
Now is the perfect time to end diplomatic relations with the illusory ROC. Taiwan is not an independent nation with sovereignty. There is no Republic of Taiwan, nor is there a Taiwanese Constitution. Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) said that Taiwan is an independent nation, but did not actually name the nation. Obama called Taiwan an entity, simply stating a reality that we need to accept for now.
Next year could well be a remarkable one for Taiwan. The “status quo” is teetering. Why should Taiwanese accept the ROC Constitution when it is rejected by China? The government should write a new Taiwanese constitution.
Obama has signed the US National Defense Authorization Act into law, authorizing top military exchanges between US and Taiwan. Is Taiwan ready for the change? Tsai should be proud of been having been elected as president of Taiwan, not the ROC. We will have to wait and see where she takes it from here.
John Hsieh
Hayward California
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on