Taiwan has become a place of conflict between proponents of unification and independence. At regular intervals, there must be a fight over Taiwan’s undetermined status.
Leaving Taiwan’s status undetermined was a strategy arranged by the US after the Korean War that bequeathed Taiwan a position in international law that would prevent Chinese annexation as Taiwanese attempted to resolve the question of sovereignty.
In recent years, however, domestic bickering over this status has become a political show for the galleries and has nothing to do with resolving Taiwan’s international dilemma.
A typical example of this is former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). He should have been the most likely person to support the “undetermined status” discourse because it denies the existence of the Republic of China (ROC). Instead, he rejected it in 2004 for fear that it would threaten the legitimacy of his presidency.
Chen was quoted as saying that “We must be grateful and not forget our roots … the connections between Taiwan and the ROC cannot be distorted … in particular, those years when the ROC occupied the mainland before 1949 cannot be wiped away.”
Arguing that Taiwan’s undetermined status has little to do with resolving Taiwan’s sovereignty under international law does not mean the subject is passe in the international community — a view advanced in 2004 by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and more recently by other pro-unification individuals.
In fact, several countries with international influence have never given up the position that Taiwan’s status is undetermined. Evidence of this can be found in recent remarks by Japan’s representative to Taiwan, Masaki Saito, that Taiwan’s status is “still unresolved.”
In another example that appeared not so long ago, the US government opposed UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon when he interpreted UN Resolution 2758 as saying that Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China.
In addition, all the talk in the US about maintaining the “status quo” can only be interpreted as support for the view that Taiwan’s status is undetermined.
When the US first brought up the concept, it was framed in terms of the self-determination of the residents of Taiwan or a possible declaration of independence by dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). Maintaining undetermined status was not the US’ first choice for Taiwan — it wanted either Taiwanese independence or “two Chinas.”
After the ROC withdrew from the UN, Taiwan’s status remained unresolved, but the concepts of “Taiwanese independence” and “two Chinas” were dismissed by most major governments, denying Taiwan even the right to self-determination. The new version of Taiwan’s undetermined status came to denote both anti-independence and anti-unification.
If this were the case, it would be absurd for pro-unification and pro-independence fundamentalists to display anger or rejoice over Saito’s remarks.
To supporters of unification, accepting that Taiwan’s status is undetermined means not recognizing the ROC. Nowadays, however, these people do not even get irritated when Ma backs away from the position of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” when addressing the international community or at cross-strait events — or even when he advocates the concept of “no unification and no independence.”
Thus, they have no reason to be angry with Saito’s remarks: The new version of Taiwan’s undetermined status no longer has a connotation of independence.
Supporters of independence, while affirming the “no unification” element, should be upset by the implications of “no independence” and the rejection of referendums that would resolve the sovereignty issue. So why have they been praising Saito?
The discourse of Taiwan’s undetermined status has changed greatly, but pro-unification and pro-independence fundamentalists are living in the past. For them, time has stopped. They refer to 60-year-old international treaties in defending their positions. The independence side invokes the San Francisco Peace Treaty, while the unification side relies on the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty. But these discourses are pointless.
Worse, these two treaties, as well as the Cairo Declaration, are residue of the power struggles of past superpowers. They deal with problems between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party — both oppressors in the eyes of Taiwanese.
The treaties treat Taiwanese as property rather than masters of their territory.
At that time, the Taiwanese interest in striving for democracy and self-determination was not strong enough, so they had to helplessly accept the superpowers’ view of their status.
Today, however, Taiwan is a democracy. Yet pro-unification and pro-independence fundamentalists are failing to maintain that the Taiwanese have the right to self-determination.
Instead, they worship treaties that were drawn up by the superpowers of yesteryear and that have nothing more than historical meaning today. It is truly pathetic.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS