On Tuesday last week, Panama terminated its diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (ROC) and changed its recognition to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Although this incident has had an emotional impact on Taiwan, it is inevitable that the “bogus China” under international law cannot be a match for the “real China.”
An official said that China and Panama established consular relations more than a century ago, on Jan. 16, 1910. Setting aside the question of whether consular relations actually signified mutual recognition, the fact is Taiwan was at that time a territory of the Empire of Japan. The official’s statement therefore only goes to show that those early China-Panama diplomatic relations were a Chinese affair that had nothing to do with Taiwan.
The official used the century-old record of diplomatic relations to tactfully explain the principle of international law that a country can only have one legitimate government.
In 1912, the ROC succeeded the Qing Dynasty and gained recognition from the international community as the legitimate government of China.
In 1949, the PRC defeated the ROC and established effective rule over China.
Then, at the UN General Assembly in 1971, the PRC won recognition from the international community as China’s legitimate government.
From that time on, the saying that “there is but one China in the world and the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government and representative of China” has become common currency around the world.
Seeking to gain from the rupture, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is accusing President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration of causing the break in diplomatic relations because it does not recognize the so-called “1992 consensus,” among other things.
The mindless KMT crowd does not even understand that under international law, a country can only have one legitimate government, so if authorities in Taipei accept that there is only “one China,” Taiwan will immediately lose all its room for diplomatic relations and become no more than an overseas territory of the PRC.
The KMT’s warped logic would indeed be a shortcut to eliminating the ROC.
The nub of the problem lies in 1949, when Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) resigned as president of the ROC; the ROC was crushed by the PRC; Chinese rejected the Constitution; and then-acting president Li Tsung-jen (李宗仁) fled to the US.
The “Chiang ROC” was not re-established in Taiwan until 1950. How, then, could it claim to be a continuation of the ROC founded in 1912 when it had gone through stages of having no president, no constitution, no electorate, no effective jurisdiction and not being recognized by any other countries?
How could it pretend to be the legitimate government of China following the total juridical and actual split that took place in that period around 1950? Even restyling itself as the “ROC on Taiwan” was in vain.
The ROC should be in China, otherwise, what is the “C” supposed to mean? Is it not precisely because of that “C” that the Beijing regime has the status of “successor government” under international law?
Every country in the world has diplomatic relations with China. They only have to choose between the ROC and the PRC.
The ROC got kicked out of China, and the ROC minus “C” is no longer what it was. It is inevitable that countries will break diplomatic relations with the “Chiang ROC” in Taipei, but as long as it is clear that “this ROC” is no longer “that ROC,” Beijing’s rabid behavior will have the unintended effect of helping Taiwan establish its own identity.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It
Former Japanese minister of defense Shigeru Ishiba has been elected as president of the governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and would be approved as prime minister in parliament today. Ishiba is a familiar face for Taiwanese, as he has visited the nation several times. His popularity among Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers has grown as a result of his multiple meetings and encounters with legislators and prominent figures in the government. The DPP and the LDP have close ties and have long maintained warm relations. Ishiba in August 2020 praised Taiwan’s
On Thursday last week, the International Crisis Group (ICG) issued a well-researched report titled “The Widening Schism across the Taiwan Strait,” which focused on rising tensions between Taiwan and China, making a number of recommendations on how to avoid conflict. While it is of course laudable that a respected international organization such as the ICG is willing to think through possible avenues toward a peaceful resolution, the report contains a couple of fundamental flaws in the way it approaches the issue. First, it attempts to present a “balanced approach” by pushing back equally against Taiwan’s perceived transgressions as against Beijing’s military threats
RSS