Decoding China: Differences in opinions between the two sides in the Taiwan election
Taiwan is about to usher in a presidential election, and relations with the mainland remain an important topic in the election campaign. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait do not recognize each other’s sovereignty and maintain the status quo. The Constitution is engraved in their hearts… What attitudes did the three presidential candidates express at the TV debate?
(Deutsche Welle Chinese website) A few days ago, during a live TV debate between Taiwanese presidential candidates, a reporter asked: “Do you agree with the Constitution of the Republic of China?” This is not a simple question. It involves the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, the Republic of China, and the People’s Republic of China. In a worst-case scenario, this relationship has the potential to spark war in the 21st century.
Since 1971, the United Nations and most countries in the world have recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. Like Germany, these countries have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Taiwan currently has 13 diplomatic allies, most of which are small Latin American and Pacific countries, as well as the Vatican City in Europe. Beijing considers Taiwan part of its territory. The “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China” states in the preamble: “Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People’s Republic of China.” This is why the mainland does not say that Taiwan is about to hold a “presidential election,” but only calls it a “Taiwan region election.” In the eyes of Beijing, “Taiwan” is a politically provocative term. It hints at the demands of the island’s political forces for independence. The Olympic Games refer to Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei”, while the WTO refers to it as “Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu Separate Customs Territory”. According to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the National People’s Congress passed the “anti-secession law”, legitimizing the military reunification of Taiwan.
What applies in Taiwan is the Constitution of the Republic of China promulgated in 1947. The civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party broke out in 1945. After losing the war four years later, the Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan in 1949. This constitution does not explicitly define territory. Article 4 of the Constitution stipulates that “the territory of the Republic of China, based on its inherent boundaries, may not be changed without a resolution of the National Assembly.” Since 1947, Taiwan’s National Assembly has not made a resolution on this issue. According to the current constitution, mainland China is also legally part of the Republic of China. Taiwan’s assertion of independence is inconsistent with its own constitution.
After China and the United States established diplomatic relations in 1979, the U.S. Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in April of the same year, laying the foundation for Taiwan-U.S. interaction. The law includes requirements for the U.S. government to “provide defensive weapons to Taiwan” and “resist any resort to force or other high-pressure means that endanger the security of the Taiwanese people and the socio-economic system.” If Beijing launches military reunification against Taiwan, the United States has no formal obligation to defend Taiwan militarily. However, the United States is discussing whether the White House should issue a more clear commitment to defend Taiwan.
Back to the Taiwanese presidential candidates’ televised debate. The current complicated legal situation in the Republic of China/Taiwan makes it impossible for the island of Taiwan to declare independence, which would be a clear violation of its own constitution. However, according to surveys, most people are opposed to the idea of unification with the mainland envisioned by the Beijing government.
The legal framework between Taiwan and mainland China remains a purely theoretical question and an election campaign issue. However, there are clearly subtle differences in the presidential candidates’ answers to this controversial question. Lai Qingde, the presidential candidate of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, was not clear in his answer. He focused on the aspects of the constitution that guarantee civil rights and democratic government. In 2017, he attracted criticism for saying that he was a “political worker who advocates Taiwan’s independence.”
Since Taiwan achieved democratization in the 1990s, it has undergone seven constitutional reforms, and some provisions have been repealed or modified. However, the definition of national territory has not been adjusted, and the only addition is a new term: “Free Area”, which stipulates the qualifications for election to national office in the Republic of China, etc.
Kuomintang presidential candidate Hou Youyi said that the Constitution is engraved in his heart, and only if the two sides of the Taiwan Strait do not recognize each other’s sovereignty and do not deny each other’s governance rights can they start a negotiation mechanism. The third candidate of the Popular Party, Ke Wenzhe, asked: “The three of us are not running for the governor of a certain state in the United States, nor the governor of a certain province in China, but for the president of the Republic of China. If we do not agree with the Constitution of the Republic of China, what qualifications do we have?” Are you standing here to elect the president?” The chairman of the People’s Party once served as the mayor of Taipei City for eight years. He said bluntly: “The two parties are spending a lot of energy discussing a problem that has no solution, which is a waste of the power of the people of the country. After all, maintaining the status quo, isn’t it the only option at the moment?”
“Decoding China” is a Deutsche Welle program that critically interprets China’s positions and arguments on current international issues from a German and European perspective.
© 2024 Deutsche Welle Copyright Statement: All contents of this article are protected by copyright law and may not be used without special authorization from Deutsche Welle. Any misconduct will result in recovery of damages and criminal prosecution.