The question of the relationship between Taiwan and the Republic of China (ROC) has been a flashpoint in Taiwanese politics for a long time. During the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) time in power, the title "Republic of China" has rapidly been adopted as acceptable, as the "status quo."
In terms of concrete policy, even though the governing and opposition parties have different views on the relationship between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC), the ROC has become mainstream in the nation's political scene, though it is defined in different ways.
Many years of education obliging students to identify with the country "China" has obstructed formation of a national consciousness of Taiwan as a sovereign nation. In addition, foreign diplomacy has always been led by those who subscribed to the "one China" and ROC concepts.
Today it is possible to separate the two Chinas represented by the PRC and the ROC. This is no small development. In particular, the ROC government has long since terminated efforts to "suppress the rebellion" in China, and has recognized the PRC.
If the PRC were also willing to accept that its revolution is complete and give up claims to the ROC, then the lingering issue of the Chinese Civil War could be resolved. But as the PRC insists on its right to succeed the ROC government under the "one China" policy, the Chinese Civil War continues as Taiwan tries to develop itself into a normal country.
Looking at it historically, ever since the UN passed Albania's proposal for the PRC to inherit the ROC right to represent China in 1971, anyone who wants to advocate that Taiwan shouldn't accept China's control of the position must consider the meaning of Taiwanese sovereignty.
Set against the backdrop of this era, political thinker Lei Chen (
In 1972, Lei proposed changing the ROC's title to the Democratic State of Taiwan-China (
In other words, it was to be a new sovereign nation and not merely an inheritance of the ROC.
Therefore, in consideration of creating a new constitution, amending the national title and moving beyond the Chinese Civil War, it is important from a legal perspective for the Taiwanese to exercise their right as sovereign citizens to create a new constitution and to clearly express that they have established an independent nation separate of China.
Hsueh Hua-yuan is the director of the Graduate Institute of Taiwan History at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Marc Langer
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS