The climate conference in Copenhagen has become a battlefield for the old controversy between Taiwan and China. Almost like a ritual, Taiwan is not invited to the climate conference despite the fact that its economy, technology and political will are fully capable of contributing to the resolution on climate change, and far better equipped than most of the participating countries.
Quite surprisingly however, Taiwan is not eager to participate despite announcements from the government that “meaningful participation in the UNFCCC is a priority for President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration.”
Taiwan has not applied for observer status at the conference, “missing” the deadline on Aug. 7. In addition, the government supported Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) was listed under China after a symbolic protest from Taiwan.
The climate conference in Copenhagen is therefore a victory for the “one China” policy. The “one China” policy of Denmark and Europe has put longstanding and massive pressure on Taiwan to make it understand that it is a part of China. Therefore, Taiwan did not receive an invitation to the climate conference. This should come as no surprise because the “one China” policy is supported by the Taiwanese government.
No one has asked Taiwanese people whether they accept the “one China” policy despite the fact that several indicators reveal that the UN climate conference and Taiwan’s government are failing to live up to the expectations of Taiwanese. Last Saturday’s local elections and several polls have revealed a loss of support for Ma and the current government’s China policy. In addition, more than 80 percent of Taiwanese refuse to be a part of China, regardless of the model offered. This should arouse thoughts among policy makers in Europe and in Taiwan.
The Taiwanese have good reason to complain about their exclusion from the climate conference, but the Taiwanese government’s complaint is hollow in light of the missing application for observer status and in light of its own moves toward closer political links with China. The government is clearly moving away from self-determination for Taiwan. Surprisingly to many Europeans, Taiwan’s government supports the “one China” policy just as Denmark and Europe does. Therefore, Taiwan’s government just got what it asked for. This is satisfactory to all parties — except the Taiwanese who want to determine their own future.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS