A few days ago, Reuters put out an explainer on Taiwan’s status and, surprisingly, it’s not bad. I spend a lot of time complaining about and tearing apart laughable, nonsensical and ridiculous articles and points within articles about Taiwan. For once, it might be pleasant to take a look at what happens when a media outlet gets things mostly right.
Yes, “mostly”. It’s not a perfect piece. It’s good enough, however, that I’d send it along to people asking for a basic rundown of Taiwan’s current status and how it relates to China.
While I will add some notes here and there, my main point is that this explainer is somewhere between “not bad” and “pretty good”. It doesn’t read like some random parachuter who doesn’t actually know much about Taiwan shat it out. My additions are fairly minor, as you’ll see.
We start here:
Previously known as Formosa, the island has been home to indigenous people for thousands of years, before the Dutch and Spanish briefly ruled parts of it in the 1600s.
Great beginning!
The Qing dynasty incorporated Taiwan as part of Fujian province in 1684 and only declared it a separate Chinese province in 1885.
Following the Qing’s defeat in a war with Japan, it became a Japanese colony in 1895. In 1945, it was handed over to the Republic of China government at the end of World War Two.
Brief and to the point. I would have added a few things if I had the word count. For instance, for most of the time Taiwan was part of Qing China, they treated it like a colony and it wasn’t even deeply desired as a territorial holding. One emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond civilization”. They tried to sell it back to the Dutch. Second, they only governed the western third of Taiwan, not even bothering to map the eastern portion until well into the 19th century. The Republic of Taiwan months are also left out.
Overall, however, I’ll take it. Let’s skip ahead a little (I don’t know if I can legally quote the whole thing, so I won’t.)
Currently only 12 countries maintain formal ties with Taipei, mostly small developing nations such as Belize and Tuvalu.
Most major Western countries and U.S. allies maintain close unofficial ties with Taiwan by recognising the Republic of China passport and having de facto embassies in each other’s capitals. Taiwanese citizens can freely travel to most countries using their Taiwanese passports.
Many people don’t realize this, so it’s good to include.
The U.S. severed official ties with Taipei in 1979 but is bound by law to provide the island with the means to defend itself. The U.S. officially takes no position on Taiwan's sovereignty under Washington's "One China" policy.
This is a solid foil to all those “but what about the One China Policy” commenters.
China says it will not renounce the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. Beijing has offered Taiwan a “one country, two systems” model similar to Hong Kong, which promised the city a high degree of autonomy, though no major political party in Taiwan supports that.
Opinion polls in Taiwan have repeatedly shown most Taiwanese wish to maintain the current status quo in relations with China.
Pointing out that China is the aggressor? Check. Taiwanese don’t want a Hong Kong model? Check. Most Taiwanese also don’t want unification? Check.
I’d have been a little more clear about what the status quo actually is, though later on the piece does state that Taiwan currently enjoys “de facto independence” so this is, in essence, covered. I would simply point out here that most Taiwanese want both sovereignty and peace; they don’t want a war, and they don’t want to be part of the PRC under any model. They want to govern themselves. In that sense, the status quo is something akin to independence.
China also says that United Nations Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, means the world legally recognises Taiwan belongs to China. The resolution states that the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government of China.
The government in Taipei says that is nonsense given the resolution made no mention of Taiwan or its status.
Very good. I would have perhaps pointed out what the resolution did say, which is that the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” cannot represent “China”. Which means that Taiwan actually could join the UN as Taiwan, if China dropped its opposition. It absolutely qualifies.
Taiwan, whose people elect their own leaders and whose government controls a defined area of territory with its own military, passport and currency, enjoys de facto independence even if that is not formally recognised by most countries.
Taiwan’s government says the Republic of China is a sovereign state and that Beijing has no right to speak for or represent it given the People’s Republic of China has no say in how it chooses its leaders and has never ruled Taiwan.
Awesome.
I’d only add that having a “defined area of territory with its own military, passport and currency” means that it qualifies as a country under the Montevideo Convention, which is now widely accepted as a method of deciding what does and does not qualify for statehood. Taiwan does.
Since taking office in 2024, Lai has said on several occasions that the Republic of China and People's Republic of China are "not subordinate to each other", which Beijing says means he believes the two are separate countries and so he is therefore pushing an independence narrative.
Beijing isn’t quite wrong. Lai and the DPP (and Lee Teng-hui before that) were indeed pushing an “independence narrative”, and still are. The point, however, is that they are correct and Beijing is wrong. I suppose you can’t say that in an explainer, but I’m more than happy to point it out.
In 2005, China’s largely rubber-stamp parliament passed the Anti-Secession Law that gives the country the legal basis for military action against Taiwan if it secedes or if the “possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted”, but the law is vague and does not give details.
The title to this section is “Does China have a legal framework to prevent formal independence?”
I appreciate that Reuters called the PRC simply “China”, because that’s what most people imagine when they imagine “China”. Not some rump state on life support called the ROC, where most citizens call their country “Taiwan”.
However, China, being a different country, does not have any actual right to “prevent” Taiwan from doing anything. It can, and has, threatened war. But its legal frameworks don’t mean anything in Taiwan, which is fully sovereign and has its own government (the article does point this out in a part I didn’t quote).
China can, I suppose, enact a “legal basis” for military action just as any country can pass any old bullshit legislation it wants. I suppose. It does not constitute a proper legal basis, internationally, for military action against Taiwan. It’s literally just some nonsense they said.
I also don’t like the use of “secedes” without scare quotes. Taiwan can’t secede from the PRC, because it has never been a part of the PRC.
I would have called out the use of “reunification”, but it’s part of a quote from the Chinese law, so I can let that slide.
All in all, this is pretty reasonable. If anyone asked me for a quick explainer, I’d feel okay sending this to them. I might add or clarify a few things, but overall, well done.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.