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
In the closing weeks of 2000, an army of Singaporean government officials descended on Washington to make good on a handshake between then-US President Bill Clinton and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (吳作棟). They had agreed to strike an FTA after a round of golf in Brunei that past November. Running a small city-state, Singapore’s leaders and their diplomats live with their ear to the ground, attuned to the slightest geopolitical movements. They were motivated then by a big-picture strategic concern — keeping the US embedded in their region. An FTA they thought would help do that. It worked. Clinton’s successor,
On Oct. 6, the UN Committee on Human Rights released a statement on the concentration camps in China’s Xinjiang region in which at least 1 million Uighurs and other ethnic minorities are incarcerated. On the same day, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) was telling delegates at a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) meeting that “happiness among the people in Xinjiang is on the rise.” It was a stark reminder of the CCP’s longstanding practice of trampling on human rights and deceiving the world. In October last year, the Taiwan East Turkestan Association and the Taiwan Friends of Tibet held an event titled
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
Some people are saying the weather has been wonderful this year. That depends on how one defines wonderful weather. The Ministry of Economic Affairs last week announced that the alert level for Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Miaoli and Taichung areas are to be raised from green to yellow, and that water pressure is to be reduced at night. Few households with water tower storage facilities would have noticed any restrictions on their supply, but people concerned with the water situation have been aware for some time that the lack of typhoons this year, coupled with low rainfall, has meant that in the