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
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