Political status of Taiwan
From Freepedia
Image:Taiwan Strait.png The political status of Taiwan is a controversy over whether Taiwan, including the Pescadores (Penghu), should remain the effective territory of the Republic of China (ROC), become unified with the territories now governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), or become the Republic of Taiwan. Currently, Taiwan, Kinmen (Quemoy), Wuchiu (Wuciou) and Matsu off the coast of mainland Fukien, and Taiping (Itu Aba) and Pratas in the South China Sea effectively make up the entire state known as the Republic of China, whose government has functioned as a representative democracy since 1991. The ROC government has in the past considered itself to be the sole legitimate government over Taiwan, as well as its former territories on the continent that include mainland China, Outer Mongolia and Tannu Uriankhai (part of which is present day Tuva). This position started to be largely ignored in the early 1990s, changing to one that does not challenge the legitimacy of PRC rule over mainland China, although the ROC's claims have never been formally and legally renounced. Different groups have different concepts of what the current formal political situation of Taiwan is.
(See also: Taiwan independence, Chinese reunification, and Cross-Strait relations)
In addition, the situation 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 accepted by most of the current groups is the status quo: that is, to leave Taiwan's status the way it is, as an effective state, without the government of this state making a formal declaration of independence. What a formal declaration of independence would consist of is not clear and can be confusing given the fact that the People's Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan since its founding and the fact that the Republic of China, whose government controls Taiwan, considers itself a de jure sovereign state. The status quo is accepted in large part because it does not define the legal status or future status of Taiwan, leaving each group to interpret the situation in a way that is politically acceptable to its members. At the same time, a policy of status quo has been criticized as being dangerous precisely because different sides have different interpretations of what the status quo is, leading to the possibility of war through brinkmanship or miscalculation.
Background
- Main article: History of Taiwan
Taiwan, including the Pescadores, was ceded by China under Qing Dynasty to Japan in 1895. Japan surrendered it in 1945 after World War II. From then onwards, Taiwan has been a province of the Republic of China. Upon losing the Chinese civil war in 1949, the ROC government retreated to Taiwan, which Japan surrendered after 50 years of colonial rule, and kept control over a few islands along the coast of mainland China and in the South China Sea, while the People's Republic of China (PRC) was established on the mainland in October 1949, which claimed to be a successor to the ROC.
Question of sovereignty
- Main article: Legal status of Taiwan
Cession, retrocession and self-determination of Taiwan
China under Qing Dynasty ceded the island of Taiwan, including the Pescadores (Penghu), to Japan "in perpetuity" at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. In the Cairo Conference of 1943, the allied powers agreed to have Japan restore "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese", which included Taiwan and the Pescadores, to the Republic of China upon Japan's surrender. According to both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, this agreement was given legal force by the Instrument of Surrender of Japan in 1945. PRC's UN Ambassador Wang Yingfan has stated multiple times in UN general committee: "Taiwan is an inseparable part of China’s territory since antiquity" and "both the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration have reaffirmed in unequivocal terms China’s sovereignty over Taiwan as a matter of international law."
On the other hand, a number of supporters of Taiwan independence argue that Taiwan was only formally incorporated as a Chinese territory under the Qing Dynasty in 1683, and as a province in 1885. Subsequently, because of the Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895, Taiwan had been de jure part of Japan when the ROC was established in 1912 and thus was not part of the Chinese republic. Also, because the Cairo Declaration was an unsigned press communique, the independence advocates argue that the legal effectiveness of the Declaration is highly questionable. Furthermore, they point out that the Instrument of Surrender of Japan was no more than an armistice, a Modus Vivendi in nature, which served as a temporary or provisional agreement that would be replaced with a peace treaty. Therefore, the independence supporters assert that both the Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei hold the legal supremacy over the surrender instrument and that these treaties did not transfer the title of Taiwan from Japan to China. According to this argument, the sovereignty of Taiwan was returned to the people of Taiwan when Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, based on the policy of self-determination which has been applied to "territories which detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War" as defined by article 76b and 77b of the United Nations Charter and also by the protocol of Yalta Conference. Independence advocates point out that at the end of World War II, allied powers agreed that the Republic of China was to "temporarily occupy Taiwan, on behalf of the Allied forces" under the authorization from General Douglas MacArthur's General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945. Even though some people interpret the 1952 Treaty of Taipei as indirectly suggesting that Japan recognized the ROC government's sovereignty over Taiwan, Penghu, and "territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government," Japan abrogated this treaty upon establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1972 by acknowledging PRC's claim that Taiwan is part of China.
Although the interpretation of the peace treaties was used to challenge the legitimacy of the ROC on Taiwan before the 1990s, the introduction of popular elections in Taiwan has compromised this position. Except for the most extreme Taiwan independence supporters, most Taiwanese support the popular sovereignty theory and no longer see much conflict between this theory of sovereignty and the ROC position. In this sense, the ROC government currently administrating Taiwan is not the same ROC which accepted Japanese surrender because the ruling authorities were given popular mandate by different pools of constituencies: one is the mainland Chinese electorate, the other is the Taiwanese constituencies. In fact, current president Chen Shui-bian has been frequently emphasizing the popular sovereignty theory in his speeches.
However, as of 2005, the conflict between these two theories still plays a role in internal Taiwanese politics. The popular sovereignty theory, which the pan-green coalition emphasizes, suggests that Taiwan could make fundamental constitutional changes by means of a popular referendum. The ROC legal theory, which is supported by the pan-blue coalition, suggests that any fundamental constitutional changes would require that the amendment procedure of the ROC constitution be followed.
Position of the People's Republic of China (PRC)
Position of the PRC towards the ROC
The position of the PRC is that the ROC ceased to be a legitimate government upon the founding of the former on October 1, 1949 and that the PRC is the successor government of the ROC as the sole legitimate 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. Whether the ROC, on the other hand, still has the legitimacy to retake the mainland is not widely accepted, but disputed.
The ROC argues that it maintains all the characteristics of a state and that it was not "replaced" or "succeeded" by the PRC because it has continued to exist long after the PRC's founding. According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, the most cited source for the definition of statehood, a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The ROC claims to meet all these criteria as it possesses a sovereign government exercising effective jurisdiction over well-defined territories with over 23 million permanent residents and a full fledged foreign ministry.
However, PRC argues that the ROC does not meet the fourth criterion as it is recognized by only 25 (relatively small and poor) countries and has been denied access to international organizations such as the UN. The ROC counters that it is pressure exerted by the PRC that prevents it from being widely recognized and that Article 3 of the same Montevideo Convention specifically says, "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states."
Position of the PRC towards Taiwan
The current position of the People's Republic of China is that "the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China". The PRC is unwilling to negotiate under any other formulation than a one China policy, but has been willing to allow the meaning of "one China" to remain ambiguous. International news organizations often report that "China considers Taiwan a renegade province that must be united with the mainland by force if necessary" even though the PRC does not explicitly say that Taiwan is a renegade province. However official PRC media outlets and PRC officials often refer to Taiwan as "China's Taiwan Province".
Position of the Republic of China (ROC)
The position of the Republic of China has always been that it is a de jure sovereign state. The ROC government under authoritarian Kuomintang rule actively maintained that it was the sole legitimate government of China, until 1991 when President Lee Teng-hui claimed that the government would no longer challenge the rule of the Communists on the mainland. However, the now defunct National Assembly never officially changed the national borders, as this would be seen as a precursor to Taiwan independence. (The task of changing the national borders now requires a constitutional amendment passed by the Legislative Yuan and ratified by an absolute majority of all eligible ROC voters.)
On the other hand, though the constitution of the Republic of China promulgated in 1946 does not state exactly what territory it includes, the draft of the constitution of 1925 did individually list the provinces of the Republic of China and Taiwan was not among them, since Taiwan was de jure part of Japan as the result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895. The constitution also stipulated in Article I.4, that "the territory of the ROC is the original territory governed by it; unless authorized by the National Assembly, it cannot be altered." However, in 1946, Sun Ke, the minister of the Executive Yuan of the ROC, son of Sun Yat-Sen reported to the National Assembly that "there are two types of territory changes: 1. renouncing territory and 2. annexing new territory. The first example would be the independence of Mongolia, and the second example would be the reclamation of Taiwan. Both would be examples of territory changes." Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan in the San Francisco Treaty in 1951 and the Treaty of Taipei of 1952 without an explicit recipient. While ROC continuously ruled Taiwan after the government was directed to Taiwan by the General Order No.1 to receive Japanese surrender, there has never been a meeting of the ROC National Assembly in making territory change according to the ROC constitution. Thus, many pro-Independence advocates suggest that the ROC constitution in fact denies its own legality governing Taiwan. [1]
The now defunct National Assembly has passed constitutional amendments that give the people of the "Free Area", comprises of the territories it controls, the sole right to exercise the sovereignty of the Republic through elections of the President and the entire Legislature as well as through elections to ratify amendments to the ROC constitution. Also, Chapter I, Article 2 of the ROC constitution states that "The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens." For some, this suggests that the constitution implicitly admits that the sovereignty of the ROC is limited to the areas that it controls even if there is no consitutional amendment that explicitly spells out the ROC's borders.
In 1999, President Lee Teng-hui proposed a two-states theory (or a special state-to-state relations theory) in which both the ROC and PRC would be considered separate states with a special diplomatic, cultural and historic relationship, and gained immense support within Taiwan. This however drew an angry reaction from the PRC who believed that Lee was covertly supporting Taiwan independence.
The current president, Chen Shui-bian, believes that "Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country" but with the view that "Taiwan is the Republic of China." This is suggested in his Four-stage Theory of the Republic of China. He, however, 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. Government publications have implied that Taiwan and the ROC, and China and the PRC are synonymous. Chen has so far refused to endorse the One China Policy the PRC requires for negotiations to begin. 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 in 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. Until the mid-1990s, supporters of Taiwan independence opposed the Republic of China and supported the creation of an independent Republic of Taiwan. Since the mid-1990s, a compromise has been reached between most supporters of Taiwan independence and Chinese reunification on Taiwan to support the continuation of the Republic of China but as a government that administers only Taiwan and other islands. The Taiwan Solidarity Union, the junior party within the pan-Green coalition, opposes this compromise.
The position of supporters of Chinese reunification in Taiwan is that Taiwan is part of China but the PRC is not the sole legitimate government of China, and that reunification does not necessarily have to occur under the communist regime. Within Taiwan, support for Taiwan independence and Chinese reunification exists as part of a political spectrum with most people in the middle. Traditionally, reunification has more support among "mainlanders" (the descendants of those who fled the mainland after the civil war), while support for independence is rooted in the "Taiwanese" majority "ethnic" group (those who have lived on the island since before the civil war).
Position of other countries and international organizations
Because of anti-Communist sentiment at the start of the Cold War, the Republic of China was initially recognized as the sole legitimate government of both mainland China and Taiwan by the United Nations and most Western nations. However, the 1970s saw a switch in diplomatic recognitions from the ROC to the PRC. In October 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the UN General Assembly, which in effect expelled the Republic of China and replaced the China seat on the Security Council (and all other UN organs) with the People's Republic of China. It declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations." Multiple attempts by the Republic of China to rejoin the UN, no longer to represent all of China but just the people of the territories it governs, have not made it past committee, largely due to diplomatic maneuvering by the PRC, which claims Resolution 2758 has settled the matter. (See China and the United Nations.)
The PRC refuses to maintain diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes the ROC, but does not object to nations conducting economic, cultural, and other such exchanges with Taiwan that do not imply diplomatic relation. Therefore, many nations that have diplomatic relations with Beijing maintain unofficial quasi-diplomatic offices in Taipei. 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 United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan recognize that there is one China and that the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. However, the U.S. and Japan acknowledge rather than recognize the PRC position that Taiwan is part of China. In the case of Canada and the UK, the bilateral written agreement stated that the two respective parties take note of Beijing's position, but the word support was also not used. Although the Chinese media claims that the United States opposes Taiwanese independence, the United States currently does not take a position on the political outcome, either reunification or independence. The U.S. does support peaceful resolution to the differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. All this ambiguity has resulted in the United States constantly walking on a diplomatic tightrope with regards to the China/Taiwan issue.
The ROC maintains formal diplomatic relations with 25 countries, mostly in Central America and Africa. Interestingly, the Holy See also recognizes the ROC, a largely non-Christian/Catholic state, 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 other for diplomatic support of small nations. However, by 2001, this effort seems to have ended as a result of the PRC's growing economic power and doubts on Taiwan as to whether this aid was actually in the Republic of China's interest. In March 2004, Dominica switched recognition to the PRC, in exchange for a large package of aid. However, in late 2004, Vanuatu briefly switched recognition from Beijing to Taipei, leading to the ouster of its Prime Minister and a return to its recognition of Beijing. On January 20, 2005, Grenada switched its recognition from Taipei to Beijing, in return for millions of dollars of aid (US$1,500 for every Grenadan). On October 26, 2005, Senegal also broke off relations with the Republic of China and established diplomatic contacts in Beijing.
Currently, the countries who maintain formal diplomatic relations with the ROC includes:
|
|
Under continuing pressure from PRC to bar any representation of Taiwan that may imply statehood, international organizations have different policies toward the issue of Taiwan's participation. In cases (such as the UN and the World Health Organization under it) where almost all UN members or sovereign states participate, the ROC has been completely shut out while in others, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) Taiwan participates under unusual names: "Chinese Taipei" in the case of APEC and the IOC, and the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kimmen and Matsu" in the case of WTO. The ISO 3166 directory of names of countries and territories registers Taiwan (TW) separately from China (CN), but lists Taiwan as a "province of China".
Naming of Taiwan continues to be a contentious issue in non-governmental organizations. One organization which faced a huge controversy in this respect was the Lions Club.
Freudian slips
Many political leaders who have maintained some form of One-China Policy have committed Freudian slips in referring Taiwan as a country or as the Republic of China. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have been known to have referred to Taiwan as a country during their terms of office. Although near the end of his term as U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell unintentionally said that Taiwan is not a state, he actually referred to Taiwan as the Republic of China twice during a testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 9, 2001 (Taipei Times; March 15, 2001). In the PRC Premier Zhu Rongji's farewell speech to the National People's Congress, Zhu accidentally referred to Mainland China and Taiwan as two countries (Taipei Times; March 6, 2003). There are also those from the PRC who informally refer to Taiwan as a country (Caroline Gluck; BBC News; August 17, 2005).
Possible military solutions and intervention
Until 1979, both sides intended to resolve the conflict militarily. Intermittent clashes occurred throughout the 1950s and 1960s, with escalations comprising the First Taiwan Strait crisis and Second Taiwan Strait crisis. In 1979, with the U.S. change of diplomatic recognition to the PRC, the ROC lost its ally needed to "recover the mainland." Meanwhile, the PRC's desire to be accepted in the international community led it to promote peaceful unification under what would later be termed "one country, two systems," rather than to "liberate Taiwan" and institute socialism.
PRC's condition on military intervention
Notwithstanding, the PRC government has issued three triggers for an immediate war with Taiwan. These three conditions are:
- if events occur leading to the separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or
- if Taiwan is invaded and occupied by foreign countries, or
- if Taiwan refuses reunification negotiations indefinitely.
Much saber-rattling by the mainland has been done over this, with Jiang Zemin, after assuming the mantle of the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, becoming a leading voice.
The third condition has especially caused a stir in Taiwan as the term "indefinitely" is open to interpretation. It has also been viewed by some as meaning that preserving the ambiguous status quo is not acceptable to the PRC, although the PRC stated on many occasions that there is no explicit timetable for reunification.
Concern over a formal declaration of de jure Taiwanese independence is a strong impetus for the military buildup between Taiwan and mainland China. Some people believe that Taiwan will attempt a declaration of independence during the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. Others point out that the current US administration has publicly declared that given the status quo, it would not aid Taiwan if it were to declare independence unilaterally.
According to ROC President Chen Shui-bian, China has accelerated the deployment of missiles against Taiwan to 120 a year, bringing the total arsenal to 706 ballistic missiles capable of being fitted with nuclear warheads that are aimed at Taiwan. These missiles are believed to have a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of more than 100 meters, which implies they could do little damage in a likely conventional war scenario because of poor accuracy. Some believe that their deployment is a political tool on the part of the PRC to increase political pressure on Taiwan to abandon unilateral moves toward formal independence, at least for the time being.
Balance of terror
The possibility of war, the close geographical proximity of the Taiwan and PRC, and the resulting flare-ups that occur every few years conspire to make this one of the most watched focal points in the Pacific. Both sides have chosen to have a strong naval presence. However, naval strategies between both powers greatly shifted in the 1980s and 1990s, when the PRC assumed a more aggressive posture by building landing crafts, and Taiwan adopted a more defensive attitude by building and buying frigates and missile destroyers.
The PRC's air force is considered large and powerful, although it is not yet capable of controlling Taiwan's airspace in event of a conflict. Taiwan's airforce relies on Taiwan's second generation fighters. Taiwan has ~150 US-built F-16s, ~60 French-built Mirage 2000-5s, and ~130 locally developed IDFs (Indigenous Defence Fighters). All of these Taiwanese fighters are able to conduct BVR (Beyond Visual Range) combat missions with respective BVR missiles, while only a handful of Chinese fighter airplanes are able to conduct such tasks.
Recently in 2003, Taiwan made a purchase of four missile destroyers—the former USS Kidd and three sister ships, and is expressing a strong interest in the Arleigh Burke class. But with the growth of the PRC navy and air force, some doubt that Taiwan could withstand a determined invasion from mainland China in the future. This also leads to a view that Taiwanese independence, if it is to be implemented, should be attempted as early as possible while Taiwan still had the capacity for an all-out military conflict. Over the last three decades, estimates of how long Taiwan can withstand a full scale invasion from China without any outside help has decreased from three months to little over three weeks.
Numerous reports issued by the PRC, the ROC, and the United States militaries make wildly contradictory statements about the possible defense of Taiwan.
Naturally, the possible war is not being planned in a vacuum. In 1979, the United States Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, a law generally interpreted as mandating U.S. defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack from the Chinese Mainland. The United States maintains the world's largest permanent fleet in the Pacific Region near Taiwan. The Seventh Fleet, operating primarily out of various bases in Japan, is a powerful naval contingent built upon the world's only permanently forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. Although the stated purpose of the fleet is not Taiwanese defense, it is safely assumed from past actions that that is one of the reasons why the fleet is stationed in those waters.
Third Taiwan Strait Crisis
Image:ROCN kang ding class.jpg In 1996, the PRC began conducting military exercises near Taiwan, and launched several ballistic missiles over the island. The saber-rattling was done in response to the possible re-election of President Lee Teng-hui, who had promoted a controversial "two states" theory for cross-strait relations. The United States, under then President Clinton, sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region, sailing them into the Taiwan Strait. The PRC, unable to track the ships' movements, and probably unwilling to escalate the conflict, quickly backed down. The event had little impact on the outcome of the election, since none of Lee's contestants were strong enough to defeat him, but it is widely believed that the PRC's aggressive acts had, far from intimidating the Taiwanese population, given Lee the boost that pushed his share of votes over 50%.
The possibility of war in the Taiwan Straits, even though quite low in the short-term, requires the PRC, ROC, and U.S. to remain wary and vigilant. The goal of the three parties at the moment seems to be, for the most part, to maintain the status quo.
Recent developments & future prospects
Political
Although the situation is confusing, most observers believe that it is stable with enough understandings and gentlemen's agreements to keep things from breaking out into open warfare. The current controversy is over the term one China, as the PRC insists that the ROC must recognize this term to begin negotiations. Although the ruling Democratic Progressive Party has moderated its support for Taiwan independence, there is still insufficient support within that party for President Chen Shui-bian to agree to one China. By contrast, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) appear willing to agree to some variation of one China, and observers believed the position of the PRC was designed to sideline Chen until the 2004 presidential election where it was hoped that someone who was more supportive of Chinese reunification would come to power. Partly to counter this, Chen Shui-bian in July 2002 announced that if the PRC does not respond to Taiwan's goodwill that Taiwan may "go on its own Taiwanese road."
With Chen's re-election in the 2004 elections, Beijing's prospects for a speedier resolution were dampened though they seemed strengthened again following the Pan-Blue majority in the 2004 legislative elections. However public opinion in Taiwan reacted unfavorably towards the anti-secession law passed by the PRC in March 2005, and despite two high profile visits by KMT and PFP party leaders to the PRC, the Pan-Green alliance gained a majority in the 2005 National Assembly elections.
Public opinion
Public opinion in Taiwan regarding relations with the PRC is notoriously difficult to gauge as poll results 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 general agreement that Beijing's one country two systems policy is unacceptable when applied to Taiwan, however public opinion regarding Taiwan's ultimate fate is somewhat more complicated.
When given a choice between the three options of independence, unification or status quo, typical results of recent polls show 20% in favor of independence, 15% in favor of unification and about 50% in favor of continuing the status quo. However, there is also between 70-80% support for the view that Taiwan is an independent nation under the name of Republic of China with a special relationship to the People's Republic of China, as set forth by former President Lee. The dependence of poll results on wording is illustrated by the results of one recent poll. 72% polled said they would fight to defend the country from a communist invasion. However, when the question was rephrased asking whether they would fight if Taiwan declared independence, the number of affirmative responses decreased to a 68%[2]. There is also a rise in pragmatists who would support either unification or independence based on the situation. A most recent poll in December 2004 shows, given a referendum vote on independence, unification or becoming a state of the U.S., 41% of Taiwanese residents support independence, 24% choose unification and 15% would be in favor of becoming a 51st state of the U.S. [3]
Changing Taiwan’s status with respect to the ROC constitution
From the perspective of the ROC constitution, which the mainstream political parties such as the KMT and DPP currently respect and recognize, changing the ROC’s governing status or completely clarifying Taiwan’s political status would at best require amending the ROC constitution. In other words, if reunification supporters wanted to reunify Taiwan with the mainland in such a way that would effectively abolish the ROC or affect the ROC’s sovereignty or if independence supporters wanted to abolish the ROC and establish a Republic of Taiwan, they would need to amend the ROC constitution. Passing an amendment requires an unusually broad political consensus, which includes approval from three-fourths of the quorum of members of the Legislative Yuan. This quorum requires at least three-fourths of all members of the Legislature. After passing the legislature, the amendments needs ratification from at least fifty percent of all eligible voters of the ROC irrespective of voter turnout.
Given these harsh constitutional requirements, neither then pan-greens or pan-blues can unilaterally change Taiwan’s political and legal status with respect to the ROC’s constitution. However, extreme Taiwan independence supporters view the ROC’s constitution as illegal and therefore believe that amendments to the ROC constitution are an invalid way to change Taiwan’s political status.
Note on terminology
Some scholarly sources as well as political entities like the PRC refer to Taiwan’s controversial status as the “Taiwan question,” “Taiwan issue,” or “Taiwan problem,” all which can be translated in Chinese as 臺灣問題/台湾问题. The ROC government does not like these terminologies, emphasizing that it should be called the “Mainland issue,” “Mainland question,” or the “Mainland problem” because from the ROC’s point of view, the PRC is making an issue out of or creating a problem out of Taiwan. To avoid siding with any viewpoint on whose issue or problem this is, this article uses the neutral term “the political status of Taiwan.” The Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia articles use the term 臺灣問題 or 台湾问題, however.
See also
- 228 incident, for historical context of ROC-Taiwanese conflict
- Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China
- China and the United Nations
- Chinese Civil War, for historical context of the ROC-PRC conflict
- Foreign relations of Taiwan
- Four-stage Theory of the Republic of China
- Legal status of Taiwan
- Politics of Taiwan
- Mainland Affairs Council of the ROC
- National Unification Council of the ROC
- Taiwan Affairs Office of the PRC
- Taiwan independence
External links
- Australian White Paper on Taiwan relations
- Cross-Strait Relations between China and Taiwan collection of documents and articles.
- PRC Government White Paper: The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue
- Taiwan Documents Project
- Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council
- Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty's Disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores Legal argument by Richard W. Hartzell in favor of US military government sovereignty over Taiwan (PDF)
