The political status of Taiwan is controversial. Not only is it controversial whether Taiwan should become part of the People's Republic of China, remain as part of the Republic of China, or become an independent nation, different groups have different concepts of what the situation is.
In addition, it can be confusing because of the different parties and the effort by many groups to deal with the controversy through a policy of deliberate ambiguity. The political solution that is acceptable to most of the current groups is status quo, which is to leave Taiwan's status the way that it is. This is acceptable in large part because it does not define what Taiwan's status is, leaving each group to interpret the situation in a way that is acceptable to it.
|
Some advocates of Taiwan independence argue that Instrument of Surrender of Japan did not transfer title of Taiwan and that when Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, the sovereignty of Taiwan returned to the people of Taiwan. Although this was used to question the legitimacy of the Republic of China before the 1990s, the introduction of popular elections in Taiwan means that except for the most extreme Taiwan independence supporters, supporters of the popular sovereignty theory no longer see a conflict between this theory of sovereignty and the ROC position. In fact, Chen Shui-bian has often emphasized the popular sovereignty theory in his speeches.
The position of the PRC is that the ROC ceased to be a legitimate government upon the former's founding on October 1, 1949 and that it is the successor government of China, with the right to rule Taiwan under the succession of states theory based on the UN Charter which advocates states rights to territorial integrity.
The official position of the Republic of China is that it is a legitimate government with a general mandate over the people of Taiwan. (Whether it still has the legitimacy to retake the mainland is not widely accepted, but nevertheless disputed.) The ROC argues that it maintains all the characteristics of a state--population, territory, government, and sovereignty--and that it was not "replaced" or "succeeded" by the PRC because it has continued to exist long after the PRC's founding.
In 1999, President Lee Teng-Hui proposed a two-states theory in which both the ROC and PRC would be considered separate states with a special diplomatic relationship. This drew an angry reaction from the PRC who believed that Lee was covertly supporting Taiwan independence.
The current presidential administration has been deliberately silent as to the issue of whether Taiwan is or is not part of China and the meaning of the term China and states that it is willing to discuss the issue. The PRC has stated that no political discussions are possible unless Taiwan agrees to the one China policy but has left it ambiguous as to exactly what one China means. At the beginning of his term, Chen Shui-Bian neither explicitly supported the two-states theory, nor rejected it. Since 2000, there have been thus far unsuccessful attempts to restart semi-formal negotiations through formulations that refer to the 1992 consensus or the spirit of 1992. After becoming chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party in July 2002, Chen appeared to move toward a two states theory and in early August 2002, he stated that Taiwan may "go on its own Taiwanese road" and that "it is clear that the two sides of the straits are separate countries." These statements were strongly criticized by opposition parties on Taiwan.
The position of supporters of Taiwan independence is that Taiwan is not part of China and the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. The position of supporters of Chinese reunification on Taiwan is that Taiwan is part of China but the PRC is not the sole legitimate government of China. Within Taiwan support for Taiwan independence and Chinese reunification exists as part of a political spectrum with most people apparently in the middle.
The PRC refuses to maintain diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes the government in Taipei, and most nations have diplomatic relations with Beijing while maintaining offices in Taipei that are diplomatic in all but name. For example, the United States maintains the American Institute in Taiwan. Similarly, the government in Taiwan maintains quasi-diplomatic offices in most nations under various names, most commonly as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office."
The ROC still maintains formal diplomatic relations with 27 countries, mostly in Central America and Africa. Interestingly, the Holy See also recognizes the ROC, mainly out of protest of the PRC's suppression of the Catholic faith on the mainland. During the 1990s, there was a diplomatic tug of war in which the PRC and ROC would attempt to outbid each together for diplomatic support of small nations. However, by 2001, this effort seems to have ended as a result of the PRC growing economic power and doubts on Taiwan as to whether this aid was actually in Taiwan's interest.
Most major countries have policies toward this issue that use very careful language which is deliberately ambiguous. International organizations also have different policies toward this issue. In some cases (such as the UN) the ROC has been completely shut out while in others, such as the World Trade Organization and International Olympic Committee the government on Taiwan has a special name--"Chinese Taipei" in the case of APEC and the IOC, and the "customs territory of Taiwan, Kimmen, and Matsu" in the case of WTO.
Naming can also be a contentious issue in non-governmental organizations. One organization which faced a huge controversy in this area was the Lions Club[?].
When given a choice between the three options of independence, status quo, or unification, typical results of recent polls show 20% in favor of independence, 15% in favor of unification, and about 50% in favor of status quo. Poll results also tend to be extremely sensitive to how the questions are phrased and what options are given, and there is a tendency by all political parties to spin[?] the results to support their point of view.
There is also a rise in pragmatists who would support either unification or independence based on the situation, 72% polled said they would fight to defend the country from a communist invasion. The Taiwanese localization phenomenon appears to have taken root with a larger percentage identifying as Taiwanese or Taiwanese first Chinese second, although majority still identify themselves as both Taiwanese and Chinese.
For historical context of this conflict, see: Chinese Civil War
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|