On Friday last week at an event to mark the 70th anniversary of the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,” Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General-Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平) gave a speech highlighting the importance of the five principles for China’s relations with other countries.
The five principles are: mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; equality and cooperation for mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence.
These sound like lofty principles and they are. They were enunciated by then-CCP chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and then-Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) before a conference in 1955 in Bandung, Indonesia, at which the People’s Republic of China (PRC) courted the many newly independent countries that were organizing themselves in the Non-Aligned Movement headed by then-Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and then-Indonesian president Sukarno.
Like Mao and Zhou in the 1950s, Xi is eager to use the five principles to gain support from the Global South in his struggle for influence in the world, getting countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America to side with China in his push back against the liberal rules-based international order, the post-World War II system that was designed to maintain global peace.
However, there is a problem: Xi does not apply the principles, even in relations with the countries with which they were originally agreed to. In the Himalayas, China and India have had significant border disputes for decades. It does not seem that Beijing has “respect for India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty” there.
Over the past few weeks, China has encroached on the Philippines’ territorial integrity near Second Thomas Shoal (Renai Shoal, 仁愛暗沙), and with Indonesia there is a long-lasting territorial dispute in the southern part of the South China Sea, with part of the waters of Indonesia’s Natuna Islands (納土納) claimed by China using its infamous “nine-dash line,” under which it claims large parts of the South China Sea in contravention of the 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
It would be good if Xi not only talked about the five principles, but also implemented them faithfully. It would even be better if the rulers in Beijing applied the five principles to relations with Taiwan.
One can only imagine how life would change for the better if this were to happen, both for China and Taiwan.
The leaders in Beijing have traditionally talked about “peaceful unification,” but as most people in Taiwan know very well, unification would be anything but peaceful. The aggressive language used by Beijing’s leaders is a clear indication of that.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim recently recited the PRC’s “reunification” mantra, showing how far he has wandered from the original principle of self-determination.
The US and other friendly countries have often used the term “peaceful resolution,” which is of course good and helpful, but it mainly emphasizes the process, and does not address the desired end-state.
The administration of US President Joe Biden has included phrasing that the future of Taiwan needs to be determined peacefully, “consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan.”
That goes in the right direction, but still falls short of another principle in international relations, the principle of self-determination, which is enshrined in the 1945 UN Charter. It states that the purpose of the UN is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
Full respect of this principle of the right of Taiwanese to determine their own future would indeed bring about the much-needed peaceful coexistence between Taiwan and China.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat who teaches Taiwan history and US relations with East Asia at George Mason University and previously taught at the George Washington University Elliott School for International Affairs in Washington.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS