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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS