Taiwan’s status is unique and unprecedented. Not only is it independent, it is generally accepted that, legally speaking, there is no need for it to declare independence.
That said, even though the reasons Taiwan has no need to declare independence appear similar on the surface, there are major differences in terms of their implications.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) changed the constitutional system and became the nation’s first directly elected president.
By “vesting sovereignty in Taiwanese,” he acknowledged that Taiwan had become an independent state via democratic elections.
The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Resolution on Taiwan’s Future also advocates vesting sovereignty in Taiwanese, deciding that the “status quo” is Taiwan is an independent state, and that any changes to this have to be decided upon by its 23 million people.
However, the pro-unification camp imposes a foreign constitution on Taiwan, deliberately confusing people with its agenda and proposes other reasons for the need to declare independence.
A classic expression of this is the rather disingenuous statement by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in New York when he said: “Have you ever heard of a country declaring independence twice?”
“We were independent as far back as 1912, so why declare independence a second time?” he said.
What Ma said does not make sense and has a tenuous relationship with reality. The Philippines, for example, became independent twice, first from Spain and then from the US.
If Ma’s “we” referred to “Taiwan,” then in 1912, it was a colony of Japan, so there was no way it could be independent.
And if by “we” he meant the “Republic of China (ROC),” then it has never “declared independence,” and its territory does not include Taiwan.
When the ROC was established in 1912, it said that its intention was to “overthrow the autocratic government, to establish the republic,” which is say, to establish a new government to replace the Qing Dynasty, not to declare independence from it.
Then-ROC minister of foreign affairs Wang Chunghui (王寵惠) asked the US only to recognize “our government” as soon as possible.
When the People’s Republic of China (PRC) replaced the ROC, it did so by revolution.
Mao Zedong (毛澤東) did not “declare independence,” but “the establishment of the PRC central government.”
Ma’s nonsense conceals malice, deliberately ignores the undetermined status of Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco, challenges Taiwan’s democracy and the sovereignty invested in the people, and acknowledges China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US