During Vice President Annette Lu's (呂秀蓮) recent visit to Panama, the IDs issued to accompanying journalists by the Panamanian government unexpectedly gave their home country as "China." Media reports quoting Taiwanese officials stationed in Panama reported that since Panama and the Republic of China have official diplomatic relations, Panamanian officials thought that the ROC represents China, and that was the reason why the "Republic of China" was shortened to "China" on the journalists' IDs.
"The Republic of China" can be shortened to "Taiwan," but not to "China." When did Taiwan represent China? I wonder if this was an oversight, or if this view still is deeply rooted in the diplomatic system.
Regardless of whether it is a matter of fact, Taiwan's stance, or the attitude of all countries, Taiwan does not represent China, and the People's Republic of China does not represent Taiwan. The ROC only represents Taiwan, Penghu, Matsu and Kinmen. If there still are officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who maintain the pan-blue camp's idea that the "one China" concept and the ROC represent China, they should be replaced.
The ROC does not represent China. This is not something that began with President Chen Shui-bian (
Internationally speaking, when the US still maintained diplomatic relations with the ROC, before switching recognition to the PRC, it did not recognize the ROC as representing China. The mutual-defense treaty signed by the US and the ROC applies to Taiwan and Penghu. By the time Chiang Kai-shek passed away, the PRC had already established an official liaison office in Washington, and the US Department of State's ROC and PRC offices are two different units.
Even though the US has recognized the PRC and severed diplomatic relations with the ROC, it does not recognize the PRC as representing Taiwan or the ROC. Washington merely says that it recognizes the PRC as the only legal government representing China. If Taiwan itself says that Taiwan is part of China, it presents the PRC with a reason to claim that it represents Taiwan.
In 1971, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution to evict the Chiang Kai-shek group, which occupied China's seat in the UN, and to transfer the right to represent China to the PRC. But the UN resolution didn't say that the PRC represented Taiwan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs's statement explaining its attempts for participation in the UN and the statements initiated by the ministry and made in the General Assembly by Taiwan's Central and South American diplomatic allies in favor of UN membership for the ROC are also based on Taiwan not having any right to represent China. These countries clearly already acknowledge the PRC as representing China and the ROC as representing Taiwan. Could Panama really be so unique that it recognizes the ROC as representing China?
From a Taiwanese perspective, when the ROC government established diplomatic relations with Grenada in 1989, Grenada did not sever diplomatic ties with the PRC, and it took the PRC seven days to break off diplomatic relations with Grenada. This means that Grenada does not recognize the ROC as representing China, nor does the ROC government claim to represent China.
When Taiwan joined the Asian Development Bank (ADB), it did so under the name "the Republic of China," but the size of its share in the bank is calculated based on the size of Taiwan, ie, the ROC only represents Taiwan, and not China. The credit for this should not go to Lee. When the PRC wanted to replace the ROC in the ADB in 1986, it stumbled over a great obstacle -- if it were to join the bank by replacing the ROC, it would only get Taiwan's shares and would not represent China. As a result, the PRC applied for admission as a new member, and the ROC was forced to change its name. But since the ADB is an international organization made up of governments, each side represents its own country.
This relationship of no mutual jurisdiction or representation was expressed even more clearly in the constitutional reforms and policy statements during Lee's time at the helm. The PRC's attempts at putting an end to the ROC government and the ROC's status as a sovereign state were met by Lee's "state-to-state relations" two-state dictum. A furious PRC applied pressure on Taiwan, forcing it to change its name in international organizations by adding the word "China" to facilitate the PRC's diplomatic annexation of Taiwan. Chen echoed Lee's two-states dictum, pointing out the factual existence of one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait, that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country and that its official name is the Republic of China. In its spirit, this stance adheres to the idea that the ROC only represents the Taiwan area, and not China, which was first espoused during the Chiang Ching-kuo era.
There have been reports in the media that the Presidential Office will try to assign blame for the mistake with the journalists' visas. This issue can not be glossed over simply by saying that the journalists' IDs were issued by the Panamanian government. It is unthinkable that the Taiwanese embassy would not request to participate in the design of journalists' IDs for a VIP visit, that it wouldn't try to find out what was happening in advance, or that it wouldn't obtain a sample.
No prior consultations, no participation in the design of the IDs, or not obtaining a sample would be tantamount to serious delinquency of duty. If there were prior participation in the design of the IDs and if samples were obtained, but Panama still was told that the "Republic of China" could be shortened to "China," this would not only be serious delinquency of duty, but it would also uncover the fact that the "one China" attitude of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' staff remain unchanged, and that they are not serious about implementing government policy.
Chiang Kai-shek played a zero-tolerance game and persisted in the idea that the ROC represented China, thus causing the comprehensive collapse of ROC diplomacy. The minimal flexibility showed by Chiang Ching-kuo, Lee's ending of the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion and his "sovereignty rests with the people" and "state-to-state" dicta, and Chen's "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait dictum, have led to a sea change in the ROC. It is merely the official name of the sovereign nation of Taiwan. The PRC, which represents China, and the ROC are two different states with one having no jurisdiction over the other.
If Taiwan's diplomats are unable to grasp this concept and make it acceptable to the countries with which Taiwan has diplomatic relations, and instead remain bogged down in the ROC-represents-China mire, Taiwan will only become more restrained by the PRC. If diplomats, as stated in media reports regarding Panama's mistake, are happy to represent China, Taiwan's diplomacy is in a tragic state indeed.
If Taiwan is attempting to upgrade its relationship with a non-diplomatic ally to one of formal diplomatic recognition, Chinese pressure on Taiwan is only to be expected. If Taiwan wants to fight China, it can only stress the facts of democracy, human rights and Taiwan being a sovereign country. If diplomats, due to their individual backgrounds or political preferences, are unable to explain the "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait concept to diplomatic allies and win its acceptance, and instead keep treading water within the "one China" concept, there is no possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough for Taiwan. Not only must the ministry discuss where responsibility for the Panamanian mistake lies, but it must also review diplomatic attitudes.
James Wang is a Washington-based journalist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS