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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then