Maintaining the “status quo” has been President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) theme for handling relations across the Taiwan Strait since she first mentioned it on April 9, 2015, during her election campaign. When she visited the US a month later, Tsai explained her position to the US side and gained its approval, paving the way for a smooth ride in the presidential election.
Then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was not at all impressed.
“What ‘status quo’ does she want to maintain?” Ma asked.
However, at his groundbreaking meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in November 2015, instead of talking about “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,” Ma echoed Xi by only mentioning “one China.”
Not willing to drop the issue, Ma in an interview in May accused Tsai of “ignoring the fact that the ‘status quo’ includes the [so-called] ‘1992 consensus,’ and without the ‘1992 consensus,’ this ‘status quo’ cannot exist.”
Ma sees the “status quo” as changeable and thinks that it shifted during his eight years in office. He also thinks his meeting with Xi is a fait accompli.
Ma should not get away with jumbling the concepts of “maintaining the status quo” and fait accompli.
“Status quo” is a straightforward description of the existing situation, so any given moment is a “status quo.” A shift in the “status quo” is a fait accompli that everyone just has to accept, and there is no point delving into the whys and wherefores.
Ma’s actions as president unilaterally changed the “status quo,” which, as well as being a big no-no in the international community, has seriously harmed Taiwan’s interests.
After World War II, Taiwan came under unique juridical conditions that were a combination of military occupation, Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) government-in-exile and unresolved territorial status. These things should be understood and acted upon within the context of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
The idea of Taiwanese authorities “maintaining the status quo” is most closely expressed by the legal principle of uti possidetis juris, or “as you possess under law,” which emphasizes legal mandates rather than mere descriptions.
The aim of this principle is to resolve political disputes peacefully through negotiations instead of by force. It was first used in the 19th century, when Spain was withdrawing from South America and newly emerging nations used it to prevent border wars from breaking out because of some territory being terra nullius or “nobody’s land.”
In consideration of new nations’ inability to maintain their borders, the Organization of African Unity in 1964 passed a resolution reiterating this principle. It was applied not only when Asian and African nations were emerging from colonial rule, but also during the breakup of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Tsai’s “maintenance of the ‘status quo’” implies keeping what Taiwan possesses under the law. It is the principle under which everyone, including what the US’ Taiwan Relations Act calls “the governing authorities on Taiwan,” the signatory nations of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and all belligerent parties of the Pacific War must respect that “Taiwan’s status cannot be changed unilaterally.”
Until and unless such a change is mandated by means of a treaty, nations must strive to maintain Taiwan’s status as an undetermined territory that nonetheless has independence and autonomy, as was the case on the day the treaty was signed.
With respect to foreign relations, Tsai must “maintain the ‘status quo,’” but when it comes to domestic governance, she does not need to keep looking over her shoulder. These two areas of policy are separate things that should not be lumped together.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
There has been much catastrophizing in Taiwan recently about America becoming more unreliable as a bulwark against Chinese pressure. Some of this has been sparked by debates in Washington about whether the United States should defend Taiwan in event of conflict. There also were understandable anxieties about whether President Trump would sacrifice Taiwan’s interests for a trade deal when he sat down with President Xi (習近平) in late October. On top of that, Taiwan’s opposition political leaders have sought to score political points by attacking the Lai (賴清德) administration for mishandling relations with the United States. Part of this budding anxiety
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
On Nov. 8, newly elected Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) and Vice Chairman Chi Lin-len (季麟連) attended a memorial for White Terror era victims, during which convicted Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spies such as Wu Shi (吳石) were also honored. Cheng’s participation in the ceremony, which she said was part of her efforts to promote cross-strait reconciliation, has trapped herself and her party into the KMT’s dark past, and risks putting the party back on its old disastrous road. Wu, a lieutenant general who was the Ministry of National Defense’s deputy chief of the general staff, was recruited
Tokyo-Beijing relations have been rapidly deteriorating over the past two weeks as China tries to punish Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan earlier this month, and the off-ramp to this conflict is yet to be seen. Takaichi saying that a “Taiwan contingency” could cause a “situation threatening Japan’s survival” — which would allow Japan to act in self-defense — has drawn Beijing’s ire and sparked retaliatory measures. Her remark did not gain public attention until Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) made an apparent threat to behead her. The two sides lodged protests against each
RSS