Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Thursday criticized US President Barack Obama for referring to Taiwan, during his end-of-year White House news conference on Dec. 16, as an “entity.” “Taiwan is an independent state, not an entity,” Lu said.
Lu was right to point out this distinction. Words, especially from the US president, are powerful. However, Obama is known for his very careful choice of wording. It is worth looking at exactly what he said, rather than focus on the word “entity.” Not to act as the US president’s apologist, but because of what it tells us of the reality of the situation.
Obama’s actual words were “China views Taiwan as part of China, but recognizes that it has to approach Taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things.”
First, the word “entity.” According to the chapter on constitutive theory of statehood in the World Heritage Encyclopedia (WHE), a sovereign state is “a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.”
Few — outside of China — would argue against the view that Taiwan has a centralized government, or that this government has supreme independent authority over a geographical area. Taiwanese follow laws promulgated in Taipei, not Beijing. The government’s authority is invested in the executive and legislative branches of the Republic of China (ROC) government on Taiwan, not that of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in China, and upheld by the ROC police administration and Taiwan’s own judiciary. All of these operate independently of Beijing. That Taiwan complies with the international law definition of what a sovereign state is, which can also be referred to as an “entity,” makes Obama’s word choice less objectionable.
Obama also said that China views Taiwan as part of China. He did not say the US views Taiwan as part of China, nor did he mention the international community. The WHE states that, in international law, “the existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact” and that a sovereign state can exist without being recognized by other sovereign states.” That is, Taiwan’s existence as a de facto independent, sovereign state is not up for question, and it therefore exists as such in international law, irrespective of the interpretation or recognition of other sovereign states.
China’s “one China” principle — that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory — reflects Beijing’s position, and only affects Taiwan’s relations with the international community insofar as other nations comply with it, which most do under pressure from China. The US’ own “one China” policy, as first stated in the 1972 Shanghai Communique, is that it acknowledges that the PRC and ROC maintain that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China, and that the US itself does not challenge that position.
Next, Obama said that China “recognizes that it has to approach Taiwan” in the manner stated.
That is not the same as equating Taiwan with an entity, even if that were an objectionable thing to do. He is saying not only that it is only China, not the US, nor the international community, that has to approach Taiwan as an entity, but that China recognizes that this is the most practicable and viable way of dealing with Taiwan, a nation that it aspires to control and argues that it has sound historical territorial rights over, but that in reality, or in international law, it cannot, and does not.
Lu is right, Taiwan is an independent state. She has no need to fear the word “entity,” especially not if this is recognized as Beijing’s interpretation alone. The international community’s adherence to the “one China” policy — as opposed to the “one China principle” — ceases to be a problem if the government ceases to identify itself as the ROC.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS