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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS