A neutral country is one that does not take part in war and remains neutral with belligerent countries under international law, and a neutral zone is a place where hostile acts cannot be performed. Current neutral countries include Sweden, Switzerland and Austria. Examples of neutral zones include international canals and straits.
Taiwan was invaded by the Dutch in the 17th century and was then a colony of various nations for more than 300 years. It was not until 1992 that Taiwan democratized and could elect its own president. Different from party-state China, which adopted a planned economic system, Taiwan implemented capitalist economic policies. This is one reason some people still cannot identify with the “unification discourse.”
Although some people support Taiwanese independence, the international community has always been opposed to any unilateral change to the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait. Thus “independence” and “unification” have turned into slogans that are used in political battles. When the Korean War broke out in the 1950s, US president Harry Truman called for Taiwan to remain neutral and this neutrality became the foundation of US policy on Taiwan. This tells us that neutrality is not only feasible, but also serves as an alternative solution to the unresolved dispute over Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Chinese leaders have always made it clear that they do not rule out the use of force in their goal to unify Taiwan with China. In addition to the 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis, China has launched a series of missile tests in the Taiwan Strait. Yet the Taiwan Relations Act (台灣關係法) stipulates that the US is obliged to maintain peace across the Strait. If China were to resort to the use of force, the US and other countries would intervene and a war could even ensue.
If a war did break out because of a misreading of the situation, both China’s southeastern coast and Taiwan would become battlefields facing ruthless devastation. Nevertheless, the right of China to annex Taiwan remains questionable and is also a violation of the UN Charter, which would not support force.
If Taiwan were to become neutral, not only would businesspeople from all over the world start to compete to invest in the nation; the governments of both Taiwan and China would not have to vie for diplomatic space, which would calm the controversy over Taiwan’s independence and arms procurement. The two sides could then devote themselves to national construction to improve living standards. Political, economic and cultural reforms would be especially important, as successful reforms are a short cut to obtaining the support of the public. If both governments could work in this direction, the dispute over Taiwanese independence would be resolved in the process.
Taiwan plays a significant role in the relations between China, the US and Japan, and is located in a crucial area between Singapore, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia and is therefore a major juncture in maintaining peace and stability in the Western Pacific. Moreover, the Taiwan Strait and its surrounding waters are necessary navigation paths to Europe for the aforementioned countries, so Taiwan must remain an area of permanent peace.
With increasingly frequent economic, political and cultural exchanges between the two sides, cross-strait animosity has disappeared, a situation no different from “neutrality.” People from both sides of the Strait should understand this and work together to promote cross-strait stability and world peace.
Hsieh Zui-chi is a former president of Central Police University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s