The people of Taiwan have voted in six direct presidential elections since 1996, electing presidents of the Republic of China (ROC). Since the constitutional area of the ROC used to include all of China, a president was only legitimate in the past if they were elected by representatives of the entire Chinese population.
Those who were opposed to direct presidential elections at that time, such as former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), were worried that the ROC — which is so closely intertwined with their destinies — would change substantially and become a political entity that only included Taiwan’s territory. As a result, they accused those who supported direct presidential elections of being traitors, who were persecuted and punished.
After six direct presidential elections, as well as the first free elections of the whole legislature, some say that Taiwan’s status has already changed. This is what is referred to as “the theory of actions of self-determination” or “the theory of evolutionary independence,” according to which direct popular elections have given Taiwan the democratic mechanisms that are required to become an independent state, and that the accumulated results of these elections are the same as self-determination.
As Taiwan has evolved into an independent nation through these elections, they claim that in order to avoid upsetting China there is no longer any need for Taiwan to exercise self-determination or declare independence.
However, both theories are problematic. In neither theory nor practice of international law is it possible to find a connection between direct presidential elections and national independence.
International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.
Even the law regulating direct presidential elections denies any ties between elections and Taiwanese independence. Such elections are held in accordance with the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法) based on the Additional Articles of the Constitution, which was designed for all China. In other words, Taiwanese voters elect presidents of the authority that has occupied Taiwan, not Taiwanese presidents.
Also, no matter how innovative the additional articles are, they are not a new constitution for a new nation, since the ROC has repeatedly written new constitutions or amended them since its establishment in 1912. Besides, the additional articles define Taiwan and China as the “free area” and the “mainland area” of “one China.”
How can the direct elections of ROC presidents by the people of the “free area” equal a referendum on Taiwanese independence?
Perhaps the results of direct presidential elections allow Taiwanese to display a “constitutional allegiance” completely different from that of Chinese. However, is that enough to obtain independence? Of course not. Building a different constitutional allegiance is just a prerequisite for moving immature sovereignty toward independence.
There is no shortcut to independence. While it is true that direct presidential elections have allowed Taiwanese to achieve effective autonomy and ensure that sovereignty rests with the people within the remaining fragments of the ROC, they have not turned Taiwan into an independent state.
This is why the international community has asked Taiwanese to further declare their willingness to be independent from China clearly and definitely.
Chris Huang is an associate professor at National Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Law for Science and Technology.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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