In an opinion article published in the Taipei Times on Mar. 14 ("What exactly is the `status quo'?" page 8), also published on April 23 in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister newspaper), John Tkacik, a senior research fellow at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, said that although the US repeatedly has underscored its opposition to changes to the cross-strait status quo, Washington has never clearly defined what that status quo entails.
Tkacik believes that by not offering a clear definition of the status quo, Washington hands the initiative to Beijing and Taipei, leaving US diplomats to react passively when tensions increase.
Tkacik therefore suggests that "the US government should publicly articulate the common sense stance that the US does not recognize or accept that China has any right whatsoever under international law to use or threaten the use of force against Taiwan." He also said that "even a Taiwanese declaration of independence would just be `words on paper' and would not change any country's behavior or affect China's security posture."
This would be tantamount to telling China that the US does not recognize, and never has recognized, China's territorial claims to Taiwan.
Taiwan is a democratic and sovereign country with its own government, permanent population and defined territory. It also has its own judicial system, military and currency. The people of Taiwan pay taxes to their own popularly elected government and have never paid taxes to the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
And it extends further than taxes: When the PRC was founded in 1949, its territory did not include Taiwan, nor has it ever ruled Taiwan. It is abundantly clear that Taiwan and China are two countries, one on each side of the Taiwan Strait. The claim by the authorities in Beijing that Taiwan is part of China has no legal basis. It is a departure from reality and mere wishful thinking.
However, Beijing promotes the "one China" policy in the international community and regards Taiwan as a "renegade province." Furthermore, it repeatedly threatens to "unify" Taiwan by military force. In 2005, China passed an "Anti-Secession" Law in an attempt to legalize an invasion of Taiwan. Even so, the international community warns China not to resort to using force against Taiwan.
Tkacik's reason for suggesting that the US government clarify the meaning of the cross-strait status quo is to prevent China from adopting measures -- including the use of force -- to unilaterally change the status quo.
In reality, a clear definition by Washington of the status quo, ie, that Taiwan and China are two separate countries, would of course be conducive to regional stability and prevent Beijing from taking any rash action. However, when discussing the status quo, we should return to some of the international treaties signed after the end of the World War II to learn the ultimate truth about Taiwan's international status. Only by doing so can we crush the empty Chinese claim that "Taiwan is part of China" and once and for all resolve the issue of China's military threat against Taiwan based on legal principles and realities.
Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into effect in 1952 clearly states that: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores [Penghu]."
This article shows that Taiwan was made independent from Japan, and that it did not come under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC), the PRC, China or any other state. Prior to this, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) had been ordered by Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces General Douglas MacArthur to send his troops to Taiwan to accept Japan's surrender and take military control of Taiwan. The fact that the ROC government was defeated by the Chinese communists does not change Taiwan's status under international law.
This is the history behind Taiwan's status. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government may have blurred Taiwan's international status as an independent sovereignty during its rule, but with the democratic developments that have taken place since the late 1980s -- in particular the power transfer in 2000 -- sovereignty has come to rest with the people of Taiwan. They have since highlighted Taiwan's status ? following World War II, international treaties separated Taiwan from Japan, making it an independent country.
In fact, UN Resolution No. 2758 in 1971 expelled the representatives of Chiang, and not the representatives of Taiwan. When the US ended its diplomatic recognition of the ROC in 1979, it passed the Taiwan Relations Act and continued to sell defensive weapons to Taipei, which implies the international community's view on the status of Taiwan's sovereignty.
The US government has emphasized that its "one China" principle is different from Beijing's and it is obvious that the US does not see Taiwan as a part of China.
The status quo of Taiwan should not only be defined to avoid military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, but also to realize the spirit of the UN Charter and the International Convention on Human Rights which state that all peoples have the right to self-determination.
In the past, China was weaker, so the US was able to adopt an ambiguous strategy. Today, China's military strength and ambition has grown. Hence, clearly defining Taiwan's status quo as an independent sovereignty is the most effective and maybe even the only strategy for the US to prevent a cross-strait war and maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and the western Pacific.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Eddy Chang
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