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.
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS