On Oct. 3, coinciding with the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, newly elected Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven announced that his government would recognize the state of Palestine.
A review of Palestinian history shows that the international community approved its establishment as a state long ago.
In 1947, the UN General Assembly recommended that the UK, as the mandatory power in Palestine, implement a partition plan that would divide greater Palestine into three entities — an Arab state, a Jewish state and a “special international regime for the city of Jerusalem.”
However, while the state of Israel was quickly established, the processes of setting up the Arab state and the regime in Jerusalem were interrupted by war.
The UN General Assembly recognized Palestinian sovereignty in November 2012 and more than 100 countries now recognize Palestine. However, Sweden is the first current EU member state to have done so. This makes Sweden’s decision highly significant. Israel’s frenzied onslaught against Palestinian civilians during the past few months prompted Sweden to reconsider its policy.
In announcing the move, Lofven said: “The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be solved with a two-state solution, negotiated in accordance with international law. A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful coexistence. Sweden will therefore recognize the state of Palestine.”
Lofven’s use of the terms “two-state solution” and “mutual recognition” to describe prospective relations between Israel and Palestine highlights that, while the international community keeps pressing Israel and Palestine to sit down together and resolve their disputes, they ignore t that negotiations between a non-state and a state can only be a sham.
Under such circumstances, Palestine cannot arrive at what diplomatic language so attractively terms a “two-state solution.”
As the victor in the Pacific theater in World War II, the US became the custodian of Taiwan’s freedom. In 1972, in order to end the Vietnam War and normalize relations with China, the US irresponsibly signed the Shanghai Communique with Beijing, agreeing that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait” should settle their differences by themselves. Since then, the US has repeatedly used arms sales as a carrot and stick to encourage the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to handle their disputes through negotiations.
However, one of the two sides is an internationally recognized state, while the other is not, and one of them is much bigger than the other. These disparities make negotiations between China and Taiwan even more of a sham than those between Israel and Palestine.
Although Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty by the UK was arranged through negotiations between two evenly matched sovereign states, China has broken its promises, and its oppression of Hong Kong has led to the protests we now see.
What can the US do to transform cross-strait talks, which are even more difficult than talks between Israel and Palestine, into genuine negotiations? What can be done to prevent the kind of outcome now happening in Hong Kong?
If Taiwan’s leaders agree to Beijing’s every demand and forge ahead with negotiations, the US would not have time to do anything about it. That is the true face of the “non-state-to-state” relationship that exists between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS