Wrong track to sovereignty
Many Taiwan supporters like Michelle Wang (“Lesson 1: Which one is our country?” Oct. 24, page 8) continue to believe that drafting a new constitution will help Taiwan on the road to normalization and boost international recognition for the Taiwanese republic. However, the burning issue of non-recognition of Taiwan is the diplomatic centerpiece of the Shanghai Communique and “one China” policy, which remains the political bane of Taiwan supporters.
The general consensus is the Republic of China (ROC) is nothing more than a Chinese government-in-exile and the ROC on Taiwan has been a putative state of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Taiwan since 1949. If we treat the ROC in this manner, then we can see how international non-recognition factors into the Taiwan dilemma.
But how can anyone support the ROC on Taiwan as a proxy for the Taiwanese republic? That is a political conflict of interest and does not allow for the impartial prosecution of the KMT for war crimes under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This co-opts the pan-greens and cannot be supported in the interest of bringing justice to the people of Taiwan.
We must hold the KMT accountable for 1947’s atrocities and its stolen assets must be brought under the treaty’s judicial process of redress. The pursuit of justice under the San Francisco treaty can lead to the legal extinction of the exiled ROC on Taiwan without disrupting the current “one China” status quo.
Popular sovereignty is an overextension of the ROC putative state and entirely ignores the treaty. The ROC constitutes a secret codeword for the Taiwan republic in the pan-green camp, but Retrocession Day is a fraudulent conveyance of Taiwan’s territory.
Territorial sovereignty for Taiwan is only derived from a treaty. The organic law of Taiwan’s cession should be rewritten in accordance with US military government regulations that can legally transform the “governing authorities” from the ROC martial law era into a true “civil government” in the post-1952 period.
By closely following the treaty’s regulations and supporting the rule of law, we could ultimately see the KMT held fully accountable for its actions. Japanese decolonialization is an ongoing process and it remains incomplete, but removing the ROC governing apparatus is a perk of the treaty’s redress. This is just the beginning of the end.
Jeff Geer
Olympia, Washington
Pro-Nationalistic?
Don’t you think that the pro-Taiwanese effort should be termed “pro-Nationalistic?” (This should not be confused with “pro-Nationalists” or “pro-KMT” sentiment). The term “pro-localization” seems to lower the status of Taiwan to a “local” entity rather than a “national” one.
E. Gene Deune,
Baltimore, Maryland
For three years and three months, Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has remained stalled. On Nov. 29, members meeting in Vancouver agreed to establish a working group for Costa Rica’s entry — the fifth applicant in line — but not for Taiwan. As Taiwan’s prospects for CPTPP membership fade due to “politically sensitive issues,” what strategy should it adopt to overcome this politically motivated economic exclusion? The situation is not entirely dim; these challenges offer an opportunity to reimagine the export-driven country’s international trade strategy. Following the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Two major Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-People’s Liberation Army (PLA) power demonstrations in November 2024 highlight the urgency for Taiwan to pursue a military buildup and deterrence agenda that can take back control of its destiny. First, the CCP-PLA’s planned future for Taiwan of war, bloody suppression, and use as a base for regional aggression was foreshadowed by the 9th and largest PLA-Russia Joint Bomber Exercise of Nov. 29 and 30. It was double that of previous bomber exercises, with both days featuring combined combat strike groups of PLA Air Force and Russian bombers escorted by PLAAF and Russian fighters, airborne early warning
Since the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation has taken Taiwanese students to visit China and invited Chinese students to Taiwan. Ma calls those activities “cross-strait exchanges,” yet the trips completely avoid topics prohibited by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), such as democracy, freedom and human rights — all of which are universal values. During the foundation’s most recent Chinese student tour group, a Fudan University student used terms such as “China, Taipei” and “the motherland” when discussing Taiwan’s recent baseball victory. The group’s visit to Zhongshan Girls’ High School also received prominent coverage in
India and China have taken a significant step toward disengagement of their military troops after reaching an agreement on the long-standing disputes in the Galwan Valley. For government officials and policy experts, this move is welcome, signaling the potential resolution of the enduring border issues between the two countries. However, it is crucial to consider the potential impact of this disengagement on India’s relationship with Taiwan. Over the past few years, there have been important developments in India-Taiwan relations, including exchanges between heads of state soon after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third electoral victory. This raises the pressing question:
RSS