Tag: Taiwan

Protect Taiwan Act Escalates Tensions, Interference in China’s Internal Affairs  

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

On February 9th, the House of Representatives in Washington passed bill H.R. 1531 a law which if it comes into force will by far be the most extreme action that the United States government has undertaken in as regards to China-Taiwan affairs in a long while.

Also known as the Protect Taiwan Act (PTA), the legislation that was introduced by Representative Frank Lucas stipulates among other things, that in the event that USA determines that certain activities by Beijing threaten “the security or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan”, it shall acting through the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission etc. take all measures possible to see to it that the perceived antagonist is cut out of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the Group of Twenty (G20), the Basel Committee on Banking Super-vision, the Bank for International Settlements, the Financial Stability Board, and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. In other words, if successful, such a move would see China become completely isolated by the international monetary system.

That the United States of America opted to further escalate its Taiwan position without provocation is not surprising as it has in recent years shown that it is capable of crossing redlines that even the least hopeful analysts imagined if one goes back a decade or so. In 2025 for instance, the House increased its security support for the Province of China by more than threefold (from $300 million to $1 billion).

What is concerning instead, is that the modality that H.R 1531 takes is so extreme that it is literally the last step to war. Given the stakes involving Taipei when it comes to technology, anyone looking on should be gravely concerned. The island’s involvement with the manufacturing of computer chips employed in the artificial intelligence industry has brought about what has come to be understood as the “Silicone Shield” making Taiwan a national security issue for Washington.

Further important to underscore is that PTA was by all estimations bipartisan (395 representatives voted in its favour as opposed to the 2 that opposed it). It also arrived in a time when the US is doing all that it can to downplay its already existing obligations both under acceptable geopolitical norms but also in international law when it comes to Taiwan. A September 2025 publication by the Congressional Research Service thus sought to portray “one-China policies”― which is what the US is supposedly involved in― as different from the one-China principle.

This is of course, is a clear bending of history. At least if one looks at the three joint communiques (1971, 1979, and 1982) which are understood to be the bedrock of modern diplomatic relations between the United States and China. Respectively, they provide that; “the U.S. acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan strait maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China”, that “the government of the USA acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, and finally that “(USA) has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan”.

Finally, as long as UN Resolution 2758 adopted in October 1971 still takes precedence over any other claim regarding the subject of our inquiry today, the US may do as it pleases albeit its actions will remain contrary to the general assembly instrument. By recognizing the government of the People’s Republic of China “as the only legitimate representative of China”, the United Nations settled once and for all any questions pertaining to whether Taiwan is a sovereign state or not. And because of this, her leadership lost their seat in New York and they have never regained it to date.

To pretend otherwise would be to undermine declarations such as the one on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (1981) which have reinstated the fact post World War II, when it comes to inter-state relations, the international dispensation is governed by mutual respect.

The US then has two options; either it proceeds to ignore the law whilst being aware of the violations or it does the right thing and tone down. What it cannot do is eat her cake and have it at the same time.

The writer is a reserch fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

On China’s Two Systems Policy

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The first time that the concept of “One Country, Two Systems” was formally presented was during a meeting between Deng Xiaoping and the president of the Chinese American Association of the United States, Yao-Tzu Li, in January 1982. From the start, Deng was clear and elaborate that this systematic policy would apply not only to Taiwan, but also to Hong Kong and Macau.

This concept was and remains one of the world’s most realistic/pragmatic, tolerant, and respectful policies ever undertaken by a powerful country, because it honours history and respects the status quo. You may wonder, how?

That begs an explanation for what the concept entails. The “One Country, Two Systems” implies that in pursuit of the reunification of China and maintenance of the One China Principle, mainland China would not impose its socialist system on the regions of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, and that those regions would be free to implement the capitalist system and that their people would keep their way of life.

The architect of this concept, Deng Xiaoping, had the foresight to discern that given China’s colonial past which had culminated into the colonisation of Hong Kong by Britain in 1842, the control of Macau by the Portuguese since the 16th century, and the separation of Taiwan from mainland China following the 1949 Chinese Civil War, it would be unrealistic and even destabilising to immediately and forcefully reunify or politically integrate those regions with China.

The success of the policy may seem mindboggling to the rest of the world, but if you think about it, Deng’s proposal was aligned well with traditional Chinese philosophy, since Confucianism holds harmony and peaceful coexistence in the utmost regard, and despises confrontation and sameness. China also has concepts like Junzi to describe the honour of a person who seeks harmony, in contrast to Xiaoren, which connotes a person who seeks conformity.

In his signature pragmatism, which he had earlier applied to opening up China, Deng proposed that these territories should be under Chinese sovereignty but must not be compelled to abandon their capitalist economies to adopt China’s socialism. He suggested that they should be left to run their existing systems for at least fifty years after reunification. He was a very strategic, patient man, that Deng. He even propounded that if reunification could not be achieved in 100 years, it would eventually be achieved, maybe in 1000 years!

As such, the concept was conceived by a man who was awake to China’s realities. It was clear to Deng, based on his writings and speeches on this issue, that neither China’s socialism nor the “Three People’s Principles,” the foundational political philosophy of Taiwan, would be allowed to swallow up the other. It was also obvious that using force would benefit neither side. Most importantly, reunification would be most tenable if it were aspired to by the whole nation.

Few governments in the world, let alone any Western country, have solved an international question with the generous pragmatism with which China approached Hong Kong and even Taiwan. The historical pattern is that lost territories are recovered through violence. China defied that in Hong Kong and Macau, and has continued to defy the use of military means to take back Taiwan, despite unbearable provocations from the United States and its Western allies.

This concept, with its flexibility, accepts the realities in the economy, politics, and culture in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan to the greatest extent possible, with full respect for their history and culture as well as the interests and concerns of the local people. With the passage of time, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan will find more common ground with the mainland as a result of more frequent and extensive exchanges between them.

China has demonstrated a knack for betting successfully on time and investing into future when the greed of the present tempts most big powers. This is the lens through which we should understand its flexibility in dealing with Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, by accepting the realities in their economic, political and cultural lives. After a long time of interacting economically and socially, it will be easy to reunify politically. How can they not? These are siblings. They have the same roots, share a common history, and have shared culture and traditions in the past. The modern image of China is something all Chinese people will want to associate with, and with the steady decline of the West, it is plausible that Taiwan will soon find its future in mainland China rather than the West. With the One Country, Two Systems, China challenged the world to reimagine political integration like never before. Let us give their experiment a chance.

The writer is a research fellow, Development Watch Center.

Why Reaffirming the one China Principle is a Just Cause

Posted on By Musiime George

A profound misconception I have heard regarding the One-China principle is the notion that countries; especially in the global south support this position because of a vested interest in guaranteeing continued Chinese investments in their economies. Uganda also reaffirmed its commitment to the one China Principle once again as it marked 63 years of Uganda-China relations raising the question on whether Uganda acted out of self-serving sycophancy. With more than 180 nations worldwide giving the policy a nod, to those aspiring to see a fair and peaceful world, Uganda’s reaffirmation of the One China principle can neither be surprising nor disappointing.

Albeit being situated on the other side of the strait, Taiwan has always been Chinese territory, and was one of the provinces of China as early as 1885. This historical continuity was only interrupted when the Qing dynasty ceded the territory at the end of the 1st Sino-Japanese war in April 1895. As one of the concessions agreed to in the treaty of Shimonoseki at the end of this conflict, Japan would occupy Taiwan along with other concessions, – even then it was an occupied territory. It shouldn’t be intricate deduction that as the occupying force left Taiwan became as before a part of sovereign China.

Indeed, following victory in the Chinese people’s war of resistance on August 15th 1945, Japan was forced to vacate all Chinese territories it had hitherto occupied— including Taiwan. Therefore, it would fall that even before the United Nations resolution 2758 of 1971, Taiwan had become what it was pre-1895, [a province in the people’s republic of China] with the defeat of the Japanese imperial army. The assumption that Taiwan sort of became an autonomous territory after 1945 is akin to saying Scotland would, for instance cease to be a part of the United Kingdom if an invading force run over Glasgow— even after the invader was later defeated.

To address the part on [just cause], let’s look at what happened after the war ended. Previously, during the period between 1895-1945, Taiwan was territory occupied by Japan. Notably though, neither Germany nor Italy got a permanent seat on the UN security council yet, the republic of China (ROC) established in Taiwan and run by separatist in 1949 somehow fluked that seat— not the people’s republic of China. By this logic, if the victors in the second world war got these privileged positions as permanent members of the UNSC, it would appear that either Japan had won a victory against itself or Taiwan unjustly occupied the people’s republic of China’s legitimate seat on the security council until 1971. Surprisingly or rather unsurprisingly, the same powers that let ROC [Taiwan] occupy this seat for this long are the very ones championing it’s supposed right to self-defense today.

With the expansion of the UN, fissures in the colonial enterprise continuously giving way and the emergence of the non-aligned movement during the cold war that the UN general assembly voted, in 1971 —in favor of resolution 2758 restoring China to its legitimate position. Of course this was not without some thirty-five members including Japan the power that had as a result of the defeat in 1949 vacated Taiwan; the seat of the [ad hoc republic of China] at the time; voting against the resolution. Even then, Uganda supported this resolution hence the reaffirmation – it only reaffirmed a position it has held since then.

Surprisingly, the United states which had voted in favor of the resolution to expel the ROC from the security council’s permanent membership in1971 followed up with more diplomatic steps in Feb 1972. A high level diplomatic visit to China by president Nixon, the first lady, his chief diplomat Bill Rogers and national security advisor Kissinger. It was this visit that culminated into the Shanghai communique —in which Washington acknowledged that there was no bigger obstacle to the normalization of China-US relations than the Taiwan question. At the end of this trip, both the United States and China agreed that all Chinese on either side of the strait maintained that there was one China with Taiwan being a part of that one China. If the US made this acknowledgement in 1972— what then does Washington’s position today say about its policy towards China?

The attempt to pull a face to face Hussein – McMahon correspondence couldn’t have gone worse. Obviously, going by the current stance, there was a duplicitous ploy to lure China away from the Communist camp in the midst of the cold war. Justification for this premise can be found in how soon Washington walked back its commitments from the Shanghai communique, something it was doing by 1979 as congress and the president claimed to find the Taiwan relations Act a matter of necessity. By making a commitment to [making services and articles of self-defense] available to a territory agreed and believed to be historically a part of a sovereign state at its own [discretionary assessment], Washington was interfering in the internal matters of another country.

The Taiwan Relations act was the single most important undoing of the previously position that [normalization of relations was in the best interest of China-US relations but Asia and the world as a whole]. By anchoring the relations between the two countries on the future of Taiwan, Washington seemed to overtly set out on a path that would only end up with a new country curved out of China.

What we see is a foreign power providing guarantees; services and articles of defense to a part of another country – fomenting strife within that territory. It is my strong belief that the latter’s maneuvers to maintain territorial integrity against forces of interference and subversion mustn’t or should not be viewed as aggression. Similarly, neither in this case, can re-affirming the one-China principle by Uganda be viewed entirely as self-serving interests, guaranteeing continued Chinese investments in the country’s  economy notwithstanding.

George Musiime is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

 

The Legal Basis of China’s Claims over the Province of China

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

Saturday October 25th will mark fifty four years since the passing of Resolution 2758 by the UN General Assembly. Given the popularity with which it was adopted, and the solidarity that it has continued to garner among countries worldwide, one would have hoped that all concerned actors would have conceded to its legitimacy. Unfortunately, that is not the case hence the need to retaliate its core position.

Before burying ourselves in the nuances surrounding this discussion, we should take a moment and acknowledge how much of a turning point the instrument was in-and-of-itself to begin with. Leading up to that moment, PRC had been advocating for recognition in New York for at least two decades in vain.  A vote that suddenly stripped the Republic of China (ROC) of status that it had managed to still possess all those years after losing control on ground told those looking on everything they needed to know thus.

At present, the loudest voices coming out against to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) interpretation of the 1971 resolution fault it for overreaching but they could not be more wrong. In contending that the resolution does not explicitly mention Taiwan to be part of China, they give no credence to the exclusivity nature of its language.

Take the terms “restoration” and “only” as adopted in the second and last paragraphs respectively. Restoring carries with in it the understanding that someone else had taken away the rights in question and that now they have to give them back. Something they cannot possibly do while also continuing to be beneficiaries. Relatedly, “only” reveals the intention of the General Assembly as placing the administration of China under a single custodianship.

It is under this precipe then that the “one-China” principle i.e. the idea that there is but a single China took effect. For the UN, one-China meant that ROC lost not only privileges such as Security Council membership or its seat at the UN but also participation in activities of other international bodies. In case that is not sufficient, the Legal Affairs office has gone as far as holding that it considers Taiwan to be a province in China and all official UN documents continue to address it as such.

As for state practice, the monopoly that PRC enjoys among nations is impossible to exaggerate. Over one hundred and eighty three of them have already thrown their weight behind Beijing’s claim over all Chinese territory. That is, they find Taiwan’s sensationalism abhorrent. For context, the countries that rallied behind China at the 21st session  General Assembly when the initial motion was tabled were seventy eight. So, support has only grown in the years since.

Moreover, China has been at the centre of spearheading new international umbrellas in recent years (including BRICS, FOCAC, Shanghai Corporation Summit, etc.). By the look of things, its compatriots elsewhere have not only accepted it but trust its leadership. Parallels cannot be drawn with Taipei.

Involvement in diplomatic relations at such a level is crucial because it satisfies the more difficult theory of state formation in international law thereby putting to rest the last well-grounded questions of legitimacy that could arise. I am referring here to the constitutive theory which unlike its sibling declaratory theory, requires more than meeting the conditions of having a permanent population, proper boundaries, and an administrative entity as stipulated by the Montevideo Convention of 1933.

In other words, PRC is not only the rightful administrator over the Taiwan province but also the kind that has shown veracity to navigate the practicalities that come with having such responsibility. Its situation is unlike the many incidents in which the law is on the side of a given peoples but the political conditions in which they find themselves mean that they remain hostages of a nefarious actor.

There is no question then that the Communist Party of China is justified in its vision of fully reuniting Taiwan with the rest of the country. In fact, even those that are pushing back know this quite well. Still, they continue to pursue their agenda as though they did not know better there warrantying an inquiry into their real motives. That is where we will start next time.

The writer is a research fellow, Development Watch Centre.

America’s hegemony deepens China-Taiwan tensions

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

If a nuclear war is ever to happen between the U.S. and China, Taiwan is likely to be the flashpoint of conflict. China’s differences with Taiwan date back to the Chinese Civil War (1927-1949), when the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) government fled to Taiwan in 1949, following the victory of Mao Zedong’s CCP over Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT. The CCP established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on mainland China in 1949, while Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, a province of China, with over 2 million soldiers, officials, and civilians loyal to him, claiming to continue with the Republic of China (ROC). Since no formal treaty ended the civil war, it remains a frozen conflict.

Legally speaking, in line with principles of international law and the post World War II international order, the legitimacy, validity and authority of the representation of the whole of China, including Taiwan, in the U.N., as a political, legal and procedural issue was formally resolved by the adoption of Resolution 2758 on October 25, 1971, at the 26th session of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Resolution read in part that the U.N. General Assembly “decides to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place where they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.”

The effect of adopting Resolution 2758 is that it fully confirmed the one-China principle. The basic implication of this is that it recognised the fact that there is only one China in the world, the Taiwan region is an inalienable part of China’s territory, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China.

History is also clear about what transpired in China in 1949. After a protracted armed struggle of 22 years, the Chinese people overthrew the government of the old Republic of China (ROC), renamed the country the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and established the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. The PRC was a new government replacing the old one within the same country. This did not change China’s sovereignty and inherent territorial boundaries. Therefore, it shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to understand that the government of the People’s Republic of China should naturally and fully exercise China’s sovereignty, including sovereignty over the region of Taiwan.

One of the key factors hindering the peaceful Resolution of this conflict is the hegemony of the U.S. and other Western countries. These countries obstructed the process of China regaining its seat in the U.N. for 22 years. Following the adoption of Resolution 2758, the one-China principle became a basic norm of international relations and a prevailing consensus in the international community. It was also marked by the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on the basis of the one-China principle by 183 countries. The denial of this legal and political precedence by the U.S. and other Western countries is what partly continues the tensions between China and Taiwan, and is a clear exercise of hegemony over all these countries and China.

Additionally, the U.S. has brazenly pushed imperialist policies against China for over 20 years by forcibly imposing the Chiang Kai-shek clique as the representatives of China to the U.N., thus undermining and disregarding the legitimate representation of China. By artificially propping up a regime to rival the legitimate government of China, the U.S. interfered and continues to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, contrary to international law and norms.

Another characteristic of hegemony and imperialism by the U.S. and a handful of allies on this issue is their attempts to challenge and distort Resolution 2758, by falsely claiming that “Taiwan’s status is undetermined.”

They want to hide behind this pretext to create a conduit for Taiwan to claim “international space.” With an excuse for making such a claim, Taiwan could argue that it meets the four criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention, i.e., that it has a permanent population of 23 million people, a defined territory of the island of Taiwan and associated territories, an effective government, and capacity to enter relations since it has De facto diplomatic and economic relationships with numerous countries. Taiwan could also argue for self-determination under the pretext that its population has developed a distinct political identity. America and its allies could be scheming to execute this chain of events for Taiwan’s independence, although this would be a violation of the fundamental norms of international relations, especially the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

What is clear is that the status of Taiwan was fully settled legally by Resolution 2758. Taiwan is not a sovereign entity. It has no standing claim for statehood or international representation.

The writer is a senior research fellow, Development Watch Center.

 

 

 

This is not the time for Secretary Rubio to act as he is when it comes to Taiwan

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

In showing public support for Taiwan during his recent visit to Guatemala contrary to a promise made to Foreign Minister Wang Yi earlier this month, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio played a card that is now but too common i.e. US officials saying one thing in private, and doing another when the cameras are on in regards to this question– declassified 1982 communications thus show President Reagan’s team secretly undermining the 3rd joint communiqué on the island almost the instant that it was signed.

To understand the motivation behind conduct like this, we can take to the aid of history and what we quickly find, is that the US was never on board with the idea of a Taiwan that is subordinate to mainland China to begin with. It is just that the international consensus strongly sided with Beijing such that America could not do anything about it. Additionally, Dr. Henry Kissinger who was Washington’s chief diplomat at the time recognized that having China’s back was key for both the prevailing Cold war as well as future business given her rising economy.

As USA’s perception of China changed overtime from trading partner to what most hawkish politicians at the Capitol Hill now call a threat, the country’s masked Taipei sentiments inevitably came to the fore. That is not the worst part though (I mean, countries do not always agree) but rather the fact that the United States is willing to act on the same in direct violation of international law.

With the passing of Resolution 2758 by the United Nations General Assembly, supporting Taipei secessionist forces is out rightly illegal. This instrument did not only revoke the membership of the “Republic of China” to the United Nations and sister organizations replacing it with the People’s Republic of China, but also obliged all countries party to the UN Charter, among them the US, to only recognize the latter government in their diplomatic missions (a declaration that has come to be known as the One-China principle).

Indeed, as the spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council Zhu Fenglian recently pointed out, as many as 183 nations have gone on to implement the said principle. Moreover, One-China is not a ghost that the Communist Party of China (CPC) is trying to awaken. The United Nations Secretary General has expressed support for it as recent as 2022. Leaders of more than 170 of the 183 countries mentioned earlier reaffirmed their commitment to this way of doing things too not long ago.

A specific recurring way in which the United States of America has put herself first despite the stipulations of legal norms, is passing domestic laws that rescind her duties to China under the global order. Take the case of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act which effectively kneecapped all progress that President Jimmy Carter had made with the 2nd joint communiqué. Behaviour like this contravenes the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Any country going against this should be condemned and called to order!

Amazingly, China does not demand that Washington cut all her ties with Taiwan. Going by the communiqués, the two can still connect through trade and cultural initiatives to mention but a few of the exemption clauses. Insisting on having her way is therefore a wanton disregard for the rule of law by USA as it is bullish there serving to undermine a major pillar of international relations; comradely.

“Why should Mr. Rubio care now (after the US has gotten away with all these misgivings)?” you might ask. Well, there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, China is far different from what it was during Nixon’s time. As it stands, the country is among USA’s top three trading partners as well as lenders.

It would also serve Sino-USA relations well if President Trump’s administration took a path of de-escalation for its Taiwan policy given that this deludes the separatists in Taipe.

But assuming that all this analysis misreads the moment, and that Marco Rubio actually has no intention of antagonizing the China’s handling of her internal affair especially the issue of its inalianable Island – Taiwan, he still ought to conduct himself in a more responsible manner. Surely, he above all people know that remarks like his most recent will play in the hands of forces opposed to the Chinese establishment, rule based worold order and more importantly, international laws!

There is also the argument that explains Secretary of State’s style as reducible to advancement of his nation’s best interests in which case he should think twice before provoking a power of China’s military capabilities into war. We saw hints of this when in 2022 then House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to provke Beijing and traveled to Taipei in show of what she called solidarity for the government there. China did not hesitate to carry out retaliatory drills.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

Taiwan is an Inelienable Part of China: Lai Ching-te Must Climb Down

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

On 20th this month, Lai Ching-te was inaugurated as the Island’s new leader, taking over from Tsai Ing-Wen who pundits saw as United States of America’s (USA) lapdog. Like Tsai Ing-Wen, Lai Ching-te started his leadership on a confrontational note presenting himself as defender and agent of Washington’s hegemonic interests in the strait of Taiwan.

In his inaugural address, Lai Ching-te clearly presented himself as a separatist stating that; “The Republic of China Taiwan is a Sovereign, independent nation” adding that the so-called Republic of China (Taiwan) is not a subordinate of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). If critically analyzed, Lai’s comments show not just a reckless but a stubborn leader who is not just ignorant of international law but is also willing to raise tension between Chinese brothers and sisters in Mainland China and those living in China’s region of Taiwan.

In that anti-China and separatist speech, Lai ignored the 1992 Consensus between officials of People’s Republic of China and Taiwan which was reached by leaders of both sides.

Also, the 26th session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly passed Resolution 2758 which undertook; “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.” Therefore, Lai to proclaim Taiwan as “Republic of China” is not only provocative but is against the international rules based order which his master’s in Washington claim to stand for.

Relatedly, historical facts back PRC’s claim that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. The Seaboard Geographic Gazetteer which was compiled 1,700 years ago by Shen Ying of State of Wu highlighting three kingdoms of China is another irrefutable evidence backing China’s claim. The Seaboard Geographic Gazetteer shows that around mid-12th Century, different Chinese governments had administrative bodies exercising jurisdiction over Taiwan. For example, the Song Dynasty had a garrison in Penghu and had Taiwan region under jurisdiction of Jinjiang County in China’s Fujian. Also, Yuan Dynasty had installed a patrol and inspection units in Penghu purposely to administer its territory of Taiwan. Even when the units were abolished, around mid-16th and towards the end of the 16th century, Ming Dynasty reintroduced the units and stationed reinforcements in Penghu to protect the territory from possible foreign invaders.

Further, Qing Emperor Kangxi in 1662 established Chengtian Prefecture on Taiwan thereby expanding Qing Dynasty administration there. In 1927, after reconstituting the Prefecture Administration of Taiwan which incorporated the new Penghu Canton, under Qing Emperor Yongzheng, the territory officially became Taiwan and in 1885, the administration of Qing Emperor Guangxu formally made Taiwan a full province.

From above, it is open secret that going by international law and historical facts, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. Therefore, Mr. Lai must come down and embark on uniting the people of the Taiwan strait with the mainland since they are the same people. Indeed, as noted by the former leader of Taiwan Ma Ying-Jeoh last year, “the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese and both are descendants of the Yan and Yellow Emperors.” Lai must know that the so-called unwavering support the United States of America (USA) is promising Taiwan cannot change facts- that Taiwan is part of China.

Therefore, while Lai’s masters in Washington have reacted angrily accusing China of “threatening” Taiwan as a result of joint military drills conducted by People’s Liberation Army’s Eastern Theater Command surrounding the Island calling it a resolute punishment for the separatist acts of “Taiwan Independence,” Lai must know that his anti-China rhetoric could not go unpunished especially that he clearly presented himself as agent of separatists which directly threatens China’s  territorial integrity. In the speech, Lai described Taiwan as a “sovereign, independent nation” before calling for what he described as extensive collaboration with external forces in pursuit of the so-called “independence” to “counter the threat” allegedly paused by Chinese mainland. Calling for external intervention in affairs of a sovereign country is not just unacceptable but a clear attempt to challenge One-China principle which is a deadline for Chinese People. Therefore, to send clear warning to separatist in Taipei is not just a threat but was the right action. It is called the doctrine of civil necessity and Lai should know that Beijing cannot just watch as separatists plant seeds of disunity and directly threatening the country’s territorial integrity.

Lai must come to reality, and understand that Taiwan is part of China and work toward reducing tension in the Taiwan strait. This to be achieved, leaders in Taiwan must stop involving foreign forces for this is China’s internal affair that in case there is need to resolve anything, it must be addressed by the Chinese people on both sides. This to happen, Lai must climb down and understand that being hostile to Beijing in no way favors the island. He must understand that in principle of doctrine of civil necessity, China is free where necessary to take all necessary steps to save its territory from agents of foreign interests. The country suffered humiliation at hands of foreign invaders and colonialists that today, Beijing cannot accept a repeat.

Lai must learn from his predecessor that choosing to stand against Beijing is not in any way good for Taiwan. For example, from 2016 when she came to power to late last year, Taiwan lost 9 diplomatic allies to China. Today, the island has a handful of allies majorly from Caribbean and South Pacific with only the Kingdom of Eswatini in Africa having diplomatic ties. This alone should inform separatists in Taipei that their moves are not only against international rules based order like being against UN’s resolution 2758 and against historical facts including for example the 1992 Consensus reached by officials of People’s Republic of China and Taiwan.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Why Taiwan’s Tsai “Transit-Diplomacy” & Speaker McCarthy Meeting Threaten World Peace

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

On Wednesday the 5th this month, U.S.A House Speaker Kevin McCarthy hosted Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen in California, U.S.A where he pledged what he described as U.S. A’s “unwavering” support for Taiwan. This prompted condemnation from Beijing which maintains that the self-ruled Island is a breakaway of mainland China and therefore an inalienable part of China’s territory. The choice of words in a statement released by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs promising to take “resolute and forceful measures to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity,” as Beijing urged the U.S “not to walk further down a wrong and dangerous road,” underscores seriousness China puts on Taiwan question.

Beijing supports its claim over Taiwan among others citing the 26th session of the United Nations General Assembly which adopted Resolution 2758 that undertook; “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it“. China also accuses the U.S of hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to Taiwan question arguing that in keeping closer ties with Taiwan, Washington goes against U.S’ commitment of abiding by “One-China Policy.” In 1979, China and the US signed communiques which resulted into normalisation of relations between the two countries. In these communiques, Washington committed to recognize “One-China policy” and de-recognised Taiwan.

Today, Beijing sees U.S’ senior politicians’ continuous courtship with Taiwan and their assurances of the so-called “unwavering support” as supporting separatists which violates “One-China policy” principle the U.S committed to uphold. China also considers U.S’ deep engagements with Taiwan interfering in her internal affairs, an act Beijing has consistently explained is not only against international law but is also China’s redline.

Before Wednesday, McCarthy-Tsai meeting, while in New York, Tsai received a leadership award from a U.S think tank, the Hudson Institute, for what they described her strategic leadership.

While McCarthy attempted to downplay his meeting with Tsai, calling it a bipartisan engagement, as rightly observed by Bonnie Glaser, head of the Asia programme at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, it is important to note that the meeting came at a time when relations between Washington and Beijing are at its lowest. Also, looking at the formal trappings of this meeting with some of U.S’ most senior ranking elected officials that formed part of congressional delegation, in no way we can simply call it just a coincidence. From historical perspective, no U.S Speaker is known to have met with a Taiwan president on U.S soil since the U.S broke off formal diplomatic relations that culminated into the 1979 communiques. With Tsai hailing what she described as “strong and unique partnership”, and Speaker McCarthy whose Congress recently declared “China an existential threat,” telling Tsai that arms sales to Taiwan must continue, it is not far-fetched to conclude that Washington is weaponizing Taiwan and escalating the situation.

Even with President Biden’s White House saying there was no need for Beijing to “overreact” to McCarthy-Tsai meeting, if critically analysed, one can argue that as a result of intentional ambiguity and or lack of clear leadership when it comes to Taiwan question, the U.S is confused leaving political actors especially hawkish politicians to approach the question without looking at the consequences including ignoring international law.

Sadly, this has left politicians in the U.S approaching Taiwan question in uncoordinated ways as some seem to use Taiwan question to score political points at home and hence, the current vague U.S – Taiwan policy we see which is characterised by both the Democrats and Republicans competing to out-do each other. This may explain why last year President Biden appeared to have been against then Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit as Biden told press that: “The military thinks it’s not a good idea right now.” Less than a year after what many analysts saw as reckless decision by speaker Pelosi to visit Taiwan, we see her successor, McCarthy trying his best to pull a Pelosi only that this time the speaker hosted Tsai on U.S soil.

While the Biden administration claims that “Congress is an independent branch of government and that Speaker makes own decisions, as other members of Congress do, about their overseas travels and engagements,” one can argue that McCarthy’s decision to go on and host Tsai despite China’s protest is irresponsible and exposes U.S’ hypocrisy and double standards that despite Washington’s of remaining committed to “One-China policy,” top ranking officials in Washington continue  to court Taiwan violates the 1979 communique signed between the U.S and China and also goes against UN Resolution 2758.

This is not to say that I don’t understand that protestations of U.S constitutional niceties – that Congress is separate to the executive, but logically, despite speaker McCarthy belonging to different political party of Republicans which is opposed to President Biden’s Democratic Party, McCarthy is not a just a Speaker of Republicans but the U.S.  Therefore, one would assume that McCarthy’s main goal is to serve interests of the U.S as a country and observe all commitments the country made or undertakes like the 1979 communique between U.S and China. This would at least in theory present the U.S as an honest and a country with Statesmen they claim to be.  But with this kind of double standards, Speaker McCarthy may think that he is acting on principle. But if critically analysed, he is simply exhibiting the exorbitant irresponsibility of the U.S legislator – power without responsibility; the self-indulgence of a figure whose job it has never been to pick up the geopolitical pieces that risks world peace.

However, to scholars and observes of international politics, one can argue that McCarthy’s decision to host Taiwan Separatists offers scholars of International Relations and Geopolitics an interesting realpolitik case. It shows us what happens when party politics trumps national security interests. It shows us what happens when tactical goals overshadow strategic objectives of a country. One can add that it gives us a glimpse of what happens when selfish politicians seek a final validation for their own ego rather than for the sake of the collective wisdom.

With China being categorical that Taiwan question is a red-line and an internal affair which must be handled by Beijing, McCarthy and Pelosi’s moves present a fertile ground for a black swan moment with potential to destabilise not just Indo-Pacific but entire world in an event of any simple mistake. Therefore, it is high time politicians in the U.S sobered and desist from poking China and using Taiwan as weapon. Washington should stop encouraging Tsai’s so-called transit diplomacy and American politicians must follow suit.  As Tsai’s predecessor, Ma Ying-jeou rightly observed, “the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese. And both are descendants of the Yan and Yellow Emperors,” efforts by foreign forces trying to separate them must be discouraged by all peace lovers globally. Such forces must be reminded that in modern world, international norms such as respecting UN resolutions and international law must be respected.

Allawi Ssemanda, PhD is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

 

 

The Officially Unofficial Meeting Between Taiwan President and U.S Speaker McCarthy is A Cobweb of Politics

Posted on By Admin

By Moshi Israel

 

The President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-Wen recently embarked on a 10-day visit to central and northern America. This “transit diplomacy” included a stop in the United States amid protests from China. The latter sees the visit as a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is because China views Taiwan as an inalienable part of the mainland and expects both Washington and Taipei to adhere to the one-China policy. This policy has kept tensions at bay within the Taiwan Strait. However, recent actions from Washington through the Pelosi Taiwan visit and now Tsai-Ing Wen’s visit to the U.S. constantly create a trilateral nightmare.

On Wednesday last week, the president of Taiwan met with the Speaker of the U.S. House, Kevin McCarthy at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley-Los Angeles where the two reaffirmed the close ties between their countries. China on the other hand vowed to respond to this meeting which Beijing views as a provocation. Wary of China’s harsh response similar to that after the former Speaker Pelosi visit which some analysts described as poking China, Washington and Taipei took deliberate measures to present the meeting as unofficial and not a threat to the long-standing U.S. stance on the one-China policy. The president’s stops to the U.S. are not being called visits. Tsai’s office has called her stops unofficial and Washington refers to them as transits. This is all deliberately sending signals to Beijing that there should be no cause for alarm. Washington is carefully walking a tightrope. However, this “transit diplomacy” between top politicians from the two sides meeting on the U.S. soil is the first of its kind since Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.

It is in the interest of the world that the Taiwan situation does not escalate into another hot war. But this might be too much to expect from the China Hawks in Washington. This category is increasingly bipartisan with both Republicans and Democrats itching to prove who is tougher on China. The fact that anti-China sentiments are increasingly rampant in both parties, proves that the majority of the American public has bought into the ‘Stop China before it overtakes us’ sales speech. The anti-China coalition in Washington is a worrying development because it means American foreign policy will only get even more aggressive toward China. Therefore, the provocative relations with Taiwan in recent years only confirm the growing uneasiness with China in Washington.

China on the other hand has been largely reacting to U.S. provocation and double-speak. The meeting between Speaker McCarthy and President Tsai Ing-Wen is just the latest provocation. The president of Taiwan is in a tough situation where her DPP party faces an election early next year after being crushed in the local elections by the main opposition party KMT in November last year. Her party strongly opposes the 1992 consensus between officials of the PRC and Taiwan on the nature of their relations.

Coincidentally, as the current president of Taiwan ‘unofficially’ passes through the United States, the former president, Ma Ying-Jeoh, of the opposition party KMT visited Beijing on a cultural and academic exchange trip. The trip is also historical in that it’s the first of its kind by either a former or current leader of Taiwan since the revolution in 1949. The Former president struck a conciliatory tone and reiterated the fact that the people across the Taiwan Strait were all of one race. He encouraged closer ties with Beijing and asked for a reduction in tensions stressing that; “the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese. And both are descendants of the Yan and Yellow Emperors.”

The only viable solution to tensions in the Taiwan Strait lies with mainland China and Taiwan and the U.S stopping misleading separatists in Taipei with their so-called “unwavering support.”  Polls conducted in Taiwan show that the majority of the 23 million people of Taiwan, prefer to maintain the status quo. Moreover, it is much more realistic for Taiwan to maintain good relations with China because of the proximity of the latter. There is no scenario in which hostility to the mainland favors the island. In case of military confrontation, it is not a guarantee that the United States will be in a position to defend Taiwan. Even under such a scenario, it is Taiwan that would suffer the biggest destruction. On this note, former president Ma Ying-Jeoh is spot on in encouraging closer ties with Beijing.

Current president Tsai is walking a dangerous path. Since her election in 2016, Taiwan has lost nine diplomatic allies to Beijing with Honduras being the latest to cut ties with the island this year on March 26. Now, Taiwan has only 13 diplomatic allies mostly island nations from the Caribbean and south pacific, Paraguay, Vatican City, and Estwani in southern Africa. This trajectory is an indication that Taiwan should conduct relations with China without being influenced by third parties. The people of China and Taiwan are one and despite their disagreements, they should always amicably address their differences.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at DWC.

The Only Answer Is Peace But The Pelosi Visit Blurs This Goal

Posted on By Admin

When the world is still reeling from being hit by Covid-19, the Ukraine crisis and historic inflation, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker for the United States House of Representatives, third in line to the presidency decided on an Asia tour that included a stop at the geo-political hotspot, Taiwan. Pelosi claimed her visit was routine despite being the highest-ranking member of the US government to set foot on the island in over twenty years. Newt Gingrich took the daring trip back in 1997 when he was the republican speaker of the House of Representatives. He ignored protests from Beijing and even alarmed his fellow lawmakers when he unilaterally warned China that the United States would intervene militarily if China attacked the island. China eventually backed down mainly because it lacked the capabilities of taking on a super power like the United States at the time.

However, 25 years later, the USA is playing the same old games but with a vastly different China. Today’s China is not only a global super power on almost equal footing with the USA, but is also an economic power house with a modern military armed to the teeth with nuclear arsenal and run by a government that is not afraid to defend its territorial integrity as well as China’s interests.

This current provocation, despite denials from Washington is quite an obvious pattern that fits into the United States’ policy of strategic ambiguity when it comes to Taiwan. The USA is normally deliberately short on details when it comes to whether or how it would defend Taiwan in the event that Beijing decides to use all necessary options to achieve what China considers total unification.

On the other hand, President Joe Biden, in May when asked whether USA would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked, he responded with a ‘yes.’ This is similar to Gingrich’s threat of military intervention in 1997 before his trip to the Island. It is hard to believe that Biden was blind-sided by the Pelosi visit, given the escalatory rhetoric coming from him in the months leading up to the controversial Pelosi visit which he told the world “The military thinks it’s not a good idea right now.”
Secondly, US’ claim that it is willing to defend Taiwan while claiming it supports “One-China” policy itself makes the US more ambiguous and a “confused country”. How can the US, a founding member of the UN claim to be ready to defend Taiwan which UN general assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 does not recognize? Would one be wrong to conclude that the US acts unilaterally and in total disagreed of international laws such as UN’s Resolution 2758 of 1971?
The policy of strategic ambiguity comes into play whenever Washington tries to test Beijing’s resolve on reunification with Taiwan whereby after a provocation, the US government shows its diplomatic face by reiterating its commitment to the Diplomatic solution of the ‘One-China policy’ that recognizes only one Chinese government-in Beijing and only has formal ties with the People’s Republic of China and not Taiwan. This strategy is to purposefully keep up the status quo and endlessly delay the reunification of the Island with Mainland China.

However, as recent events have indicated, this US strategy can only go so far until it back fires. It is a high school bully kind of strategy where the bully is having fun taunting their victim and expecting them to tuck tail and run, until the latter decides to stand up for themselves and then the options for the bully are drastically limited. In this case, when China decides to fight back, the US will be left with only two unacceptable options, to completely back down or to fight and establish dominance whereby the former option would be an embarrassment to US global standing and a letdown to Taiwan and the latter would ensure an unpredictable future for not only USA and China but for the entire world.

But currently the fear of a complete reunification between Taiwan and China has left the United States to deem the provocation worth the risk. Taiwan is too important to US interests in the Indo-pacific, the island is also the largest manufacture of semiconductors which are used in most of the world’s electronics. The Taiwan strait is also a vital gateway for all kinds of ships to and from North East Asia and basically enables a reliable supply chain.

Everyone around the world should understand the history of China and Taiwan to fully appreciate and answer the Taiwan question. Historically, Taiwan was under imperial China before Japan gained control of it in 1895 when the Qing ceded the island to Japan under the Shimonoseki treaty. Consequently, Japan ruled the island until it was defeated in 1945 and unconditionally surrendered through the Cairo proclamation and the Potsdam proclamation. Taiwan and the Penghu islands were returned to the Republic of China (ROC) governed by the nationalists at the time. A civil war broke out in mainland China between the nationalist government led by Chiang-Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong’s communist party. As a result, the communist party won the war in 1949 and controlled Beijing. The surviving members of the nationalist party ran off to Taiwan where they established their own Chinese government and ruled the island for several decades. In October 1971, the United Nations, through resolution 2758, expelled the representatives of Chiang-Kai-Shek (thus the ROC) and replaced it as ‘China’ by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Consequently, the United States of America, switched recognition from Taipei to Beijing, giving birth to the ‘One-China policy.’

Therefore, Currently Beijing looks at US actions fueled by the Nancy Pelosi visit to Taiwan as a betrayal and reversal of America’s own policy and a defiance of international law passed by the United Nations. This time Beijing has responded harshly by sanctioning Speaker Pelosi and her immediate family members, suspending collaboration with the United States on important issues like climate change and escalating military drills within the Taiwan strait, hence effectively blocking off the Island from the world.

Currently, geopolitical hotspots are increasing, from Ukraine to North Korea, Iran, Syria, Gaza and now Taiwan. History has offered to the human species many lessons to learn from and do better in the future but every single time, we go on making the same old mistakes. In an ideal world, actors in the international community only have room to make new mistakes and not repeat old ones.
However, the current Taiwan tensions provoked by Pelosi’s trip prove that we are hell bent on making the same old mistakes until the final straw is wiping ourselves out of existence. Not to sound alarmist but if the current global political atmosphere stretches on for a few more years, humanity will once again find itself in the familiar territory of war and catastrophe but this time the implications could be apocalyptic. The world is tilting towards chaos, the world’s temperament is heating up and there are those who are determined to fan the flames.

Moshi Israel is a Research Fellow at Development Watch Center.