ROC, Taiwan, independence
Misconceptions about UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 abound, and not always due to disinformation by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Take the statement “Taiwan left the UN in 1971” (UN should rescind 2758 interpretation, Sept. 22, page 1): How could Taiwan have left the UN if it had never joined? In international law, the state that left the UN was the Republic of China (ROC), not Taiwan.
In contrast, Taiwanese as a people have the right to self-determination. “One Taiwan, one China” was a known option even before the UN resolution. It had been an ironclad fact, as Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) wrote in his 1964 Declaration of Formosan Self-Salvation (“Liberty Times Editorial,” Apr. 16, 2022, page 8). Likewise, Chen Lung-chu (陳隆志) and Harold Lasswell produced a book-length proposal in 1967 — Formosa, China and the United Nations: Formosa in the World Community.
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) refused any such offer during his dictatorship, resulting in the expulsion of his regime — the ROC — from the UN (“Righting Chiang Kai-shek’s wrongs,” Sept. 12, 2007, page 8). So conflating Taiwan with the ROC is a dead end for any meaningful participation in the UN.
Knowing this, PRC foreign minister Wang Yi (王毅) demanded that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) respect “their own constitution” in 2016 (“China’s mention of ROC Constitution no landmark: academic”, March 1, 2016, page 3).
The ROC fantasy survives for three reasons:
One: “Taiwan’s government has not made an official proclamation of independence — because China regards that as a casus belli,” as the British House of Commons foreign committee recently summarized this “‘status quo’ at gunpoint” (“Taiwan has right to choose its destiny: UK lawmaker,” Oct. 5, page 1).
Two: The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enjoys perpetuating the ROC playing field tilted in its favor (“KMT accuses government over National Day phrase,” Oct. 5, page 2).
Three: hard-right Cold Warriors pipe dream about “free China retaking the mainland,” Chiang-style.
However, as international support grows for Taiwan, an opportune time might come to found a new and independent state — one the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan prophesied in 1977 (“Taiwan in Time: The devout dissidents,” Jan. 5, 2020, page 8). All elected representatives — not just the president — may play a key role then: The International Court of Justice’s 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence hints that the legislators may act not as members of the ROC Legislative Yuan, but as “persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of [Taiwan] outside the [ROC constitutional] framework” (paragraph 109).
There would be implications to consider, which have so far been veiled by the ROC framework: For example, how to defend Taiwan with only 12 nautical miles of territorial waters and a new status for Kinmen and Matsu (“Ian Easton on Taiwan: Why Taiwan’s frontline islands matter,” July 31, page 8); what is the appropriate posture in the East and South China seas — less as a sidekick for Chinese claims, more as a good neighbor in the Indo-Pacific.
Te Khai-su
Helsinki, Finland
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view