On May 13, Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Unfortunately, the two presidents have yet to overcome this obstacle to direct negotiations.
Who is correct? Is Taiwan a sovereign state or a non-sovereign territory? A brief review of two core concepts in the field of international relations -- sovereignty and the state -- might help answer these questions.
The idea of sovereignty was one of the most important intellectual developments that led to the Westphalian revolution. According to Jean Bodin (1530-1596), a French philosopher who contributed much to the development of the concept, sovereignty is the "absolute and perpetual power vested in a commonwealth."
Sovereignty is "the distinguishing mark of the sovereign that he cannot in any way be subject to the commands of another, for it is he who makes law for the subject, abrogates law already made and amends law."
Sovereignty resides in the state -- a body that exercises predominant authority within its geographic borders, possesses a relatively stable population that owes its allegiance to a government and maintains diplomatic ties with other states. Bodin's treatise was penned centuries ago, but it still influences global politics. For example, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States defines a sovereign state as having a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to contemporary nomenclature, a state is the equivalent of a country.
The ROC exercises predominant authority within its borders, possesses a relatively stable population that owes its allegiance to the central government in Taipei, maintains formal diplomatic ties with roughly two dozen foreign countries and strong "unnofficial" links with many others. Despite China's protestations to the contrary, it is obvious that the ROC does exist and meets all the requirements of sovereignty and statehood.
To be sure, the ROC's territory and governmental system has changed dramatically over the decades. The country has evolved from a corrupt, authoritarian dictatorship into what the US Department of State describes officially as a "multi-party democracy" that exercises jurisdiction over roughly 36,000km2. Like other states, such as the UK, people employ a variety of monikers to describe the Taiwanese government. Some prefer to call it "the ROC," while others call it "the ROC on Taiwan" and still others call it simply "Taiwan."
Irrespective of the designation, however, public opinion polls reveal that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese consider the country an independent and sovereign state. Other arguments employed by Beijing, such as the suggestion that Taiwan is not a state because it is no longer a member of the UN, are similarly flawed. According to this logic, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has existed only since 1971 (when it gained admission to the UN) and Switzerland has only existed for a few years.
Moreover, it makes no difference whether the US or other major world powers formally recognize Taiwan as a state. The US didn't recognize the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1933 and it didn't recognize the PRC from 1949 to 1979. The US currently recognizes neither the Cuban nor the North Korean government, but few would argue that these states do not exist.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the PRC government has never exercised any control over Taiwan, has never written its laws nor funded its government, and is not accepted by the people of Taiwan as having any authority within their borders. In other words, PRC sovereignty does not extend to Taiwan and Taiwan is not part of the PRC.
Chen recently called on Hu to visit Taiwan to see for himself whether the Republic of China is a sovereign, independent country. But is a summit really required to settle this issue? Rather than quarrel over the thorny sovereignty issue, the two presidents ought to engage in direct talks without preconditions and devote their energies to discussing practical matters like the maintenance of peace, stability and prosperity in the Western Pacific. After all, as one Taiwanese governmental study concluded, "that the ROC has been an independent sovereign state since its establishment in 1912 is an incontrovertible historical fact."
Dennis Hickey is the author of several books on China and Taiwan and a professor of political science at Missouri State University.
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
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
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