Political status of Taiwan
66555
225793901
2008-07-15T12:52:24Z
Readin
5647774
[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 225749730 by [[Special:Contributions/202.147.27.170|202.147.27.170]] ([[User talk:202.147.27.170|talk]]) "ROC" is used for governmen, "Taiwan" for country.
[[Image:Taiwan Strait.png|thumb|250px|[[Taiwan Strait]] area]]
The controversy regarding the '''political status of Taiwan''' hinges on whether [[Taiwan]], including the [[Pescadores]] (Penghu), should remain effectively independent as territory of the [[Republic of China]] (ROC), become [[Chinese reunification|unified]] with the territories now governed by the [[People's Republic of China]] (PRC), or formally declare independence and become the [[Republic of Taiwan]]. The controversy over the '''political status of the Republic of China''' hinges on whether its existence as a [[sovereign state|state]] is legitimate and recognized.
Currently, Taiwan, Penghu, [[Kinmen]] (Quemoy), [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]] and some other minor islands effectively make up the jurisdiction of the [[sovereign state|state]] known as the Republic of China. The ROC ruled [[mainland China]], and claimed sovereignty over [[Outer Mongolia]] and [[Tannu Uriankhai]] (part of which is present day [[Tuva]]) before losing the [[Chinese Civil War]] and relocating its government to Taipei in December 1949.
Since the ROC [[China and the United Nations|lost its United Nations seat]] in 1971 ([[UN General Assembly Resolution 2758|replaced]] by the PRC), most sovereign states have switched their diplomatic recognition to the PRC, recognizing or acknowledging the PRC to be the sole legitimate representative of all China. As of January 2008, the ROC maintains official diplomatic relations with 23 sovereign states,<ref name=NewsMalawi>{{cite news | title= Taiwan breaks ties with Malawi | url=http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200801141806.htm|date=[[Jan 14]], [[2008]] | publisher=The Hindu|accessdate=2008-02-02}}</ref> although ''de facto'' relations are maintained with nearly all others. Agencies such as the [[Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office]] and [[American Institute in Taiwan]] operate as ''de facto'' embassies without official diplomatic status.
The ROC government has in the past considered itself to be the sole legitimate government over [[China]], as well as its former territories. 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. However, the ROC's claims have never been renounced through a constitutional amendment; both the PRC and the ROC carry out cross-strait relations through specialized agencies (such as the [[Mainland Affairs Council]] of the ROC), rather than through foreign ministries. Different groups have different concepts of what the current formal political situation of Taiwan is. (''See also: [[Chinese reunification]], [[Taiwan independence]], 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 many of the current groups is the following perspective of the [[status quo]]: that is, to unofficially treat Taiwan as a state and at a minimum, to officially declare no support for 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|History of Taiwan}}
Some claim that the [[Kingdom of Tungning]], lasting from 1661 to 1683, was the first [[Han Chinese]] [[government]] to rule [[Taiwan]]. From 1683, the [[Qing Dynasty]] ruled [[Taiwan]] as a [[prefecture]] and in 1875 divided the island into two prefectures. In 1887 the island was made into a separate [[Chinese province]] to speed up development in this region. In the aftermath of the [[First Sino-Japanese War]], Taiwan and the [[Pescadores]] were ceded by the Qing Dynasty to [[Japan]] in 1895. Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to the Republic of China at end of [[World War II]], putting Taiwan under a Chinese government again after [[History of Taiwan#Japanese Rule|50 years of Japanese rule]]. The ROC would then claim sovereignty on the basis of the Qing dynasty's administration, [[Cairo Declaration]], [[Potsdam Declaration]], and [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender]], but this became contested by pro-independence groups in subsequent years due to different perceptions of the said documents' legality. Upon losing the Chinese civil war in 1949, the ROC government retreated to Taipei, and kept control over a few islands along the coast of [[mainland China]] and in the [[South China Sea]]. The [[People's Republic of China]] (PRC) was established on the mainland on October 1, 1949, claiming to be the [[succession of states theory|successor]] to the ROC.
[[Quemoy]], [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]] and [[Wuchiu]] on the coast of [[Fujian|Fukien]], and [[Taiping (island)|Taiping]] and [[Pratas]] in the [[South China Sea]], are part of the ROC's present territory, but were not ceded to Japan. Some arguments supporting the independence of Taiwan do not apply to these islands.
== Question of sovereignty over Taiwan==
{{Main|Legal status of Taiwan}}
=== Cession, retrocession and self-determination of Taiwan ===
[[Image:Japan 1911.jpg|thumb|right|230px|Some claim, at the establishment of the ROC in 1912, Taiwan was ''de jure'' part of [[Japan]]. <br/><small>The PRC (founded October 1, 1949) denies that claim arguing that the [[Treaty of Shimonoseki]] was invalid as one of several [[unequal treaties]] forced upon the Qing.</small>]]
[[China]], during the [[Qing Dynasty]], ceded the island of Taiwan, including the [[Pescadores]] (Penghu), to [[Japan]] "in perpetuity" at the end of the [[Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)|First Sino-Japanese War]] by signing 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", specifically listing "Formosa" 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. The PRC's UN Ambassador, [[Wang Yingfan]] (Chinese 王英凡), has stated multiple times in the 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." The PRC rejects arguments involving the lack of a specific treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty) transferring Taiwan's sovereignty to China by noting that it was not a signatory to any such treaty, making the treaties irrelevant with regard to Chinese claims. The ROC argues that the Treaty of Taipei implicitly transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to it.
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 Conference|Cairo Declaration]] was an unsigned press communiqué, 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, only a military occupation of Taiwan began on Oct. 25, 1945, and both the [[Treaty of San Francisco]] and [[Treaty of Taipei]] hold legal supremacy over the surrender instrument. 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 San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) 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 the [[Yalta Conference]].
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 administering Taiwan is not the same ROC which accepted Japanese surrender because the ruling authorities were given [[mandate|popular mandate]] by different pools of constituencies: one is the mainland Chinese electorate, the other is the Taiwanese constituencies. In fact, former president [[Chen Shui-bian]] has been frequently emphasizing the popular sovereignty theory in his speeches.
[[Image:The Taiwan State.jpg|thumb|300px|A shopping bag produced by an independence-leaning pastry establishment. The address uses "State of Taiwan" rather than "Taiwan Province" or "Republic of China."]]
However, as of 2007, 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) ===
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 of the ROC as the sole legitimate government of [[China]], with the right to rule Taiwan under the [[succession of states theory]].<ref name = prc_wp>{{cite web | year=2005| title=The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue | work=PRC Taiwan Affairs Office and the Information Office of the State Council | url=http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/detail.asp?table=WhitePaper&title=White%20Papers%20On%20Taiwan%20Issue&m_id=4 | accessdate=2006-03-06}}</ref> 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.
The Unification supporters in Mainland China argue that the ROC and PRC are two different factions in the Chinese Civil War, which never legally ended. Therefore both factions belong to the same sovereign country—China. Since Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to China, the secession of Taiwan should be agreed upon by 1.3 billion Chinese citizens instead of the 23 million [[ROC]] citizens who currently live on the Taiwan. Furthermore, they interpret [[UN General Assembly Resolution 2758]], which states "Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations", to mean that the PRC is granted the sovereignty of all of China, including Taiwan. (The actual Resolution, however, does not specifically mention Taiwan and to whom its sovereignty belongs.) Therefore, the PRC believes that it is within their legal rights to extend its jurisdiction to Taiwan, by military means if necessary.
In addition, the PRC argues that the ROC does not meet the fourth criterion of the Montevideo Convention, as it is recognized by only 23 (relatively small and poor) countries and has been denied access to international organizations such as the UN. The ROC counters that the pressure the PRC exerts<ref name = prc_wp /> prevents the ROC 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." This was accomplished because the PRC took many coercive steps to isolate the ROC diplomatically. Nevertheless, the Unification supporters point out the fact that the [[Montevideo Convention]] was only signed by 19 states at the Seventh International Conference of American States. Thus the authority of the [[United Nations]] as well as UN Resolutions should supersede the [[Montevideo Convention]].
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". This view is rejected by [[Taiwan]]'s [[Republic of China]] government which holds the view that both [[PRC]] and [[ROC]] are two separate and sovereign [[China|Chinese]] [[governments]] that split during the [[Chinese civil war]].<ref name = prc_wp /> The PRC government is unwilling to negotiate with the [[Republic of China]] ([[Taiwan]]) under any formulation other than under a [[One-China policy]], although flexibility in terms of defining that "one China" such as found in the [[1992 consensus]] is allowed. This has made Taiwan-China negotiations difficult, since the PRC refuses to meet with high-level publicly-elected Taiwanese officials. The PRC government considers perceived violations of its One-China policy, or inconsistencies such as supplying the ROC with arms, a violation of its rights to [[territorial integrity]].<ref name=pdaily041010>{{cite news | url=http://english.people.com.cn/200410/10/eng20041010_159539.html | title=China expresses strong indignation for "US-Taiwan defense conference": FM spokesman | publisher=[[People's Daily]] |date=[[2004-10-10]]}}</ref> 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 officials often refer to Taiwan as "China's [[Taiwan Province]]". (The PRC claims [[Quemoy]], [[Wuchiu]] and [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]] as part of its [[Fujian|Fujian Province]], and the South China Sea Islands part of its [[Guangdong]] and [[Hainan]] provinces.)
=== Position of the Republic of China (ROC) ===
{{Refimprovesect|date=November 2007}}
Until the mid-90s, the position of the [[Republic of China]] had been that it was a ''[[de jure]]'' sovereign state. "Republic of China," according to the Taiwanese government's definition, extended to both the mainland and the island of Taiwan.<ref name=mac>{{cite press release | publisher = Mainland Affairs Council, ROC Executive Yuan |date= [[2005-03-29]] | title = The Official Position of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on China’s Passing of the Anti-secession (Anti-Separation) Law|url =http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/anti/mofa940329e.htm}}</ref>
Until 1991, when [[President of the Republic of China|President]] [[Lee Teng-hui]] claimed that the government would no longer challenge the rule of the Communists on the mainland, the ROC government under [[Kuomintang]] rule actively maintained that it was the sole legitimate government of China. The Courts in Taiwan have never accepted President Lee's statement, primarily due to the reason that the (now defunct) [[National Assembly of the Republic of China|National Assembly]] never officially changed the national borders. Notably, the [[People's Republic of China]] claims that changing the national borders would be "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, which the PRC has implied would constitute grounds for military attack.
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 of the Republic of China|National Assembly]], it cannot be altered." However, in 1946, [[Sun Fo]], son of [[Sun Yat-Sen]] and the minister of the [[Executive Yuan]] of the ROC, 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 [[Treaty of San Francisco]] in 1951 and the [[Treaty of Taipei]] of 1952 without an explicit recipient. While the 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 a territory change according to the ROC constitution, though the [[s:Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China|Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China]] have mentioned Taiwan "Province." Thus, many pro-Independence advocates point out that the ROC constitution in fact denies its own legality governing Taiwan.{{fact|date=June 2008}}<!-- the link is dead[http://news.yam.com/tdn/politics/200502/20050215236817.html] -->
The now defunct National Assembly passed constitutional amendments that give the people of the "[[Free Area of the Republic of China]]", comprising the territories it controls, the sole right to exercise the sovereignty of the Republic through elections<ref name=mac /><ref>{{cite news |title= Taiwan assembly passes changes |date=[[2005-06-07]] |publisher=BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4616043.stm}}</ref> 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 constitutional amendment that explicitly spells out the ROC's borders.
In 1999, Taiwan President [[Lee Teng-hui]] proposed a [[Special state-to-state relations|two-state theory]] (兩國論) in which both the [[Republic of China]] (ROC) and the [[People's Republic of China]] ([[PRC]]) would acknowledge that they are two separate countries with a special diplomatic, cultural and historic relationship, and gained immense support within Taiwan.<ref name=2states_1>{{cite news | first=Sanya | last=Bunnag | title=Understanding Taiwan's tactics |date=[[July 20]], [[1999]] | publisher=[[BBC]] | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/399381.stm }}</ref><ref name = 2000vote>{{cite journal | author=Willem van Kemenade | title=Taiwan, Voting for Trouble? | journal=The Washington Quarterly | year=2000 | volume=23.2 | pages=135–151 | url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v023/23.2kemenade.html }}</ref> This however drew an angry reaction from the PRC who believed that Lee was covertly supporting [[Taiwan independence]].<ref name=2states_2>{{cite news | title=Beijing media ups the ante |date=[[July 20]], [[1999]]|publisher=[[BBC]] | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/399350.stm }}</ref>
[[President]] [[Chen Shui-bian]], fully supports the idea that the "[[Republic of China]] is an independent, sovereign country" but holds the view that "Taiwan is the Republic of China" and not the [[People's Republic of China]]. This is suggested in his [[Four-stage Theory of the Republic of China]]. Due to the necessity of avoiding war with the [[PRC]] however, President Chen has refrained from formally declaring Taiwan's independence. Government publications have implied that Taiwan refers to the ROC, and "China" refers to the PRC.<ref name=mac /> President Chen has repeatedly refused to endorse the [[One China policy|One China Principle]] the PRC demands as a precursor to negotiations. There have been thus far unsuccessful attempts to restart semi-formal negotiations through formulations that refer to the ''[[1992 Taiwan consensus|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 most supporters of [[Taiwan independence]] is that the PRC is the government of mainland China, that Taiwan is not part of China, and the Republic of China (Taiwan) is the independent, autonomous government of Taiwan. The Democratic Progressive Party states that Taiwan has never been under the jurisdiction of the PRC, and that the PRC does not exercise any hold over the 23 million Taiwanese on the island.
Traditionally, reunification had more support among "mainlanders" (the descendants of those who fled the mainland after the [[Chinese civil war|civil war]]), while support for independence was rooted in the "Taiwanese" majority "ethnic" group (those who have lived on the island since before the civil war). However, both groups have begun to lean more towards independence due to growing military threats from China, who in 1996 fired missiles into the Taiwan Strait in an attempt to disrupt the presidential elections, and who currently (June 2008) has 1300+ missiles pointed at Taiwan. Conversely to China's intention, some scholars have posited that China's threat of war has actually caused ideas of a distinct Taiwanese nationality and solidarity to grow stronger.
China has pledged to provide economical benefits and support for Taiwan following the examples of the reunified Hong Kong and Macao if Taiwan chooses to unify itself with the PRC.
=== Position of other countries and international organizations ===
:''See also [[Foreign relations of the Republic of China]]
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 [[China]] by the [[United Nations]] and most Western nations. On January 9, 1950, the Israeli government extended recognition to the People's Republic of China. [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 505]], passed on [[February 1]], [[1952]] considered the Chinese communists to be rebels against the Republic of China. However, the 1970s saw a switch in diplomatic recognitions from the ROC to the PRC. On [[25 October]] [[1971]], [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758|Resolution 2758]] was passed by the [[UN General Assembly]], which [[China and the United Nations|in effect expelled]] the Republic of China and placed the People's Republic of China on the [[Security Council]] seat as well in all other UN organizations. 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,<ref name = prc_wp /> 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 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]] have formally adopted the [[One China]] policy, under which the People's Republic of China is theoretically the sole legitimate government of China. However, the United States and Japan ''acknowledge'' rather than ''recognize'' the PRC position that Taiwan is part of China. In the case of Canada and the UK, bilateral written agreements state that the two respective parties ''take note'' of Beijing's position but do not use the word ''support''. The UK government position that "the future of Taiwan be decided peacefully by the peoples of both sides of the Strait" has been stated several times. Despite the PRC claim that the United States opposes Taiwanese independence, the United States takes advantage of the subtle difference between "oppose" and "does not support". In fact, a substantial majority of the statements Washington has made says that it "does not support Taiwan independence" instead of saying that it "opposes" independence. Thus, the US currently does not take a position on the political outcome, except for one explicit condition that there be a peaceful resolution to the differences between the two sides of the [[Taiwan Strait]].<ref name= state>{{cite press release | publisher = U.S. Department of State|date= [[2004-04-21]] |title = Overview of U.S. Policy Towards Taiwan | url = http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2004/31649.htm
}}</ref> All of this ambiguity has resulted in the United States constantly walking on a diplomatic tightrope with regard to the China/Taiwan issue.
The ROC maintains formal diplomatic relations with 23 countries, mostly in Central America and Africa. Notably the [[Holy See]] also recognizes the ROC, a largely non-[[Christianity|Christian]]/[[Catholic]] state, mainly to protest what it sees as the PRC's [[Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association|suppression of the Catholic faith]] in mainland China. However, [[Vatican City|Vatican]] diplomats were engaged in talks with PRC politicians at the time of [[Pope]] [[John Paul II]]'s death, with a view towards improving relations between the two countries. When asked, one Vatican diplomat suggested that relations with Taiwan might prove "expendable" should China be willing to engage in positive diplomatic relations with the Holy See.<ref>{{cite news | first=Richard | last=Spencer | title=Vatican ready to sacrifice Taiwan for China |date=[[May 16]], [[2005]] | publisher=[[Daily Telegraph]] | url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/16/wvati16.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/16/ixworld.html }}</ref> Under [[Pope Benedict XVI]] the Vatican and China have shown greater interest in establishing ties, including the appointment of pro-Vatican bishops and the Pope canceling a planned visit from the [[Dalai Lama]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119810469258140621.html?mod=googlenews_wsj|title=The Vatican's Cold Shoulder|publisher=[[Wall Street Journal]]|date=[[2007-12-20]]|accessdate=2008-1-14}}</ref>
During the 1990s, there was a diplomatic tug of war in which the PRC and ROC attempted to outbid each other to obtain the diplomatic support of small nations. This struggle seems to have slowed as a result of the PRC's growing economic power and doubts in 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 aid package.<ref>{{cite news | first=James | last=Painter | title=Taiwan's 'Caribbean headache' |date=[[March 30]], [[2004]] | publisher=[[BBC]] | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3583733.stm }}</ref> However, in late 2004, [[Vanuatu]] briefly switched recognition from Beijing to Taipei,<ref>{{cite news | first=Fred | last= Vurobaravu | title=Parliament debates Vanuatu-Taiwan deal |date=[[November 24]], [[2004]] | publisher=Vanuatu Daily Post | url=http://www.news.vu/en/news/diplomacy/041124-parliament-debates-vanuato-taiwan.shtml }}</ref> leading to the ousting of its Prime Minister and a return to its recognition of Beijing.<ref>{{cite news | title=Vanuatu gov. reshuffled after Taiwan controversy |date=[[December 11]], [[2004]] | publisher=[[China Radio International]] | url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/11/content_399473.htm }}</ref> On [[January 20]], [[2005]], [[Grenada]] switched its recognition from Taipei to Beijing, in return for millions in aid (US$1,500 for every Grenadian)..<ref>{{cite news | title= Grenada picks China over Taiwan |date=[[January 21]], [[2005]] | publisher=[[BBC]] | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia%2Dpacific/4190295.stm }}</ref> However, on [[May 14]], [[2005]], [[Nauru]] announced the restoration of formal diplomatic relations with Taipei after a three-year hiatus, during which it briefly recognized the People's Republic of China.<ref>{{cite news | title= Nauru Switches its Allegiance Back to Taiwan from China |date=[[May 15]], [[2005]] | publisher=[[Taipei Times]] | url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/05/15/2003254718 }}</ref>
On [[October 26]], [[2005]], [[Senegal]] broke off relations with the Republic of China and established diplomatic contacts with Beijing.<ref>{{cite news | title= Senegal picks China over Taiwan |date=[[October 26]], [[2005]] | publisher=[[BBC]] | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4377818.stm }}</ref> The following year, on [[August 5]], [[2006]], Taipei ended relations with [[Chad]] when Chad established relations with Beijing.<ref>{{cite news | title= Taiwan Breaks Off Relations With Chad | http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-05-voa36.cfm|date=[[August 5]], [[2006]] | publisher=[[Voice of America]]}}</ref> On [[April 26]] [[2007]], however, [[Saint Lucia]], which had previously severed ties with Taiwan following a change of government in December 1996, announced the restoration of formal diplomatic relations with Taipei.<ref>{{cite news | title= Taiwan re-establishes diplomatic relations with St. Lucia | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/01/asia/AS-GEN-Taiwan-China-St.-Lucia.php|date=2007-08-30| publisher=[[International Herald Tribune]]}}</ref> On [[June 7]], [[2007]], [[Costa Rica]] broke off diplomatic ties with Taiwan in favour of the mainland.<ref name=BBCCostaRica>{{cite news | title= Taiwan loses Costa Rica's support | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6729035.stm|date=[[June 7]], [[2007]] | publisher=[[BBC News]]|accessdate=2007-06-07}}</ref> In January 2008 Malawi's foreign minister reported Malawi decided to cut diplomatic recognition of the Republic of China and recognize the People's Republic of China.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011400533.html|title=Malawi Drops Ties With Taiwan for China|publisher=[[The Associated Press]]|date=[[2008-01-14]]|accessdate=2008-01-14}}</ref>
Currently, the countries who maintain formal diplomatic relations with the ROC include:
{|width=100% style="background:transparent"
|-width=50% valign=top
|
* {{BLZ}} (1989)
* {{BFA}} (1994)
* {{DOM}} (1957)
* {{SLV}} (1961)
* {{GMB}} (1995)
* {{GTM}} (1960)
* {{HTI}} (1956)
* {{HND}} (1965)
* {{KIR}} (2003)
* {{MHL}} (1998)
* {{NRU}} (1980–2002, 2005)
* {{NIC}} (1990)
|
* {{PLW}} (1999)
* {{PAN}} (1954)
* {{PRY}} (1957)
* {{KNA}} (1983)
* {{LCA}} (1984–1997, 2007)
* {{VCT}} (1981)
* {{STP}} (1997)
* {{SLB}} (1983)
* {{SWZ}} (1968)
* {{TUV}} (1979)
* {{VAT}} (The [[Holy See]]) (1942)
|}
Under continuing pressure from the PRC to bar any representation of the ROC that may imply statehood, international organizations have adopted different policies toward the issue of Taiwan's participation. In cases where almost all UN members or sovereign states participate, such as the [[World Health Organization]]<ref>{{cite news | first=Bradley | last=Klapper | title=Taiwan fails in 10th bid for WHO observer status |date=[[May 23]], [[2006]] | publisher=[[Associated Press]] | url=http://www.chinapost.com.tw/i_latestdetail.asp?id=38428 }}</ref>)the ROC has been completely shut out, while in others, such as the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) and [[International Olympic Committee]] (IOC) the ROC 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" (often shortened as "Chinese Taipei") in the case of the WTO. The issue of Taiwan's name came under scrutiny during the 2006 World Baseball Classic. The organizers of the 16-team tournament intended to call Taiwan as such, but reverted to "Chinese Taipei" under pressure from China. The Taiwanese protested the decision, claiming that the WBC is not an IOC event, but did not prevail.<ref>{{cite news | title=Major League Baseball succumbs to Beijing |date=[[February 1]], [[2006]] | publisher=[[WorldNetDaily]]|url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48597 }}</ref> The [[ISO 3166]] directory of names of countries and territories registers Taiwan (TW) separately from and in addition to the People's Republic of China (CN), but lists Taiwan as "Taiwan, Province of China" based on the name used by the UN under PRC pressure. In [[ISO 3166-2:CN]], Taiwan is also coded CN-71 under China, thus making Taiwan part of China in [[ISO 3166-1]] and [[ISO 3166-2]] categories.
Naming issues surrounding Taiwan/ROC continue to be a contentious issue in non-governmental organizations such as the [[Lions Club]], which faced considerable controversy naming its Taiwanese branch.<ref>{{cite news | first=Lindy | last=Yeh | pages=3 | title=Taiwan's Lions Club gets another temporary name |date=[[July 12]], [[2002]]|publisher=[[Taipei Times]] | url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2002/07/12/147941 }}</ref>
== Controversies ==
Many political leaders who have maintained some form of One-China Policy have committed slips of the tongue in referring to [[Taiwan]] as a country or as the [[Republic of China]]. [[United States]] 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]] said that [[Taiwan]] is not a state, he referred to [[Taiwan]] as [[the Republic of China]] twice during a testimony to the [[U.S. Senate]] Foreign Relations Committee on [[March 9]], [[2001]].<ref>{{cite news | title=US scrambles as Powell learns the art of 'diplospeak' |date=[[March 15]], [[2001]] | publisher=[[Agence France-Presse]] | url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2001/03/15/77594 }}</ref> In the [[People's Republic of China]] Premier [[Zhu Rongji]]'s farewell speech to the [[National People's Congress]], Zhu accidentally referred to [[Mainland China]] and [[Taiwan]] as two countries.<ref>{{cite news | pages=3 | title=China and Taiwan `two countries': Zhu |date=[[March 6]], [[2003]] | publisher=[[Taipei Times]] | url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2003/03/06/196950 }}</ref> There are also those from the PRC who informally refer to Taiwan as a country.<ref>{{cite news | first=Caroline | last=Gluck | title= Taiwan struggles with Chinese dissidents |date=[[August 17]], [[2005]] | publisher=[[BBC]] | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4153594.stm }}</ref> [[South Africa]] delegates once referred to Taiwan as the "[[Republic of Taiwan]]" during [[Lee Teng-hui]]'s term as President of the ROC.<ref>{{cite web | author=[[Su Tseng-chang]] |date=1994-06-03 | title=大聲說出「我們是台灣」| publisher = [[Democratic Progressive Party|DPP]] | url=http://www.dpp.org.tw/news/common/ProductDetail.asp?prd_id=3068 | accessdate=2006-07-16}}</ref> In 2002, [[Michael Bloomberg]], the mayor of [[New York]], referred to Taiwan as a country.<ref>{{cite news | title=NY mayor stands up for Taiwan |date=[[May 2]], [[2002]] | publisher=[[Taipei Times]]|url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2002/05/02/134226 }}</ref> Most recently, former [[United States Secretary of Defense|US Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] stated in a local Chinese newspaper in California in July 2005 that Taiwan is "a sovereign nation". The [[People's Republic of China]] discovered the statement about three months after it was made.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
In a controversial speech on February 4, 2006, [[Minister for Foreign Affairs (Japan)|Japanese Foreign Minister]] [[Taro Aso]] called [[Taiwan]] a country with very high education levels because of previous [[Taiwan under Japanese rule|Japanese colonial rule]] over the island.<ref>{{cite news | pages=2 | title=Good schools due to Japan: Aso |date=[[February 6]], [[2006]] | publisher=[[Taipei Times]] | url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/02/06/2003291777 }}</ref> One month later, he told a Japanese parliamentary committee that "[Taiwan's] democracy is considerably matured and [[Liberal theory of economics|liberal economics]] is deeply ingrained, so it is a law-abiding country. In various ways, it is a country that shares a sense of values with Japan." At the same time, he admitted that "I know there will be a problem with calling [Taiwan] a country".<ref>{{cite news | pages=1 | title=Japan's Aso calls Taiwan a `country' |date=[[March 10]], [[2006]]|publisher=[[Taipei Times]] | url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/03/10/2003296575 }}</ref> Later, the [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)|Japanese Foreign Ministry]] tried to downplay or reinterpret his remarks.
In February 2007, the Royal [[Grenada]] Police Band played [[National Anthem of the Republic of China|Taiwan's national anthem]] in an inauguration of the reconstructed [[St George's, Grenada|St George's]] Queen's Park Stadium funded by the PRC. Grenada had broken off diplomatic relationship with Taiwan just two years prior in favor of the PRC. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6328881.stm]
When the [[Kuomintang]] visited [[Mainland China]] in 2005, the government-controlled Chinese media called this event a "visit," and called the KMT one of "Taiwan's political parties" even though the Kuomintang's full name remains the "Chinese Nationalist Party." Interestingly in Mainland China, there is a legal party called the [[Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang]] that is officially one of the nine "consultative parties," according to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.
The Chinese government has stated that it expresses a welcoming attitude towards Taiwanese businesspeople should they choose to return to the "motherland" for business purposes, but treats Taiwanese investment as "foreign investment". This is simply out of convenience, and the Chinese government also treats investment from [[Hong Kong]] "foreign investment". This can result in confusion as the PRC does not consider Hong Kong or Taiwan to be foreign nations.
== Possible military solutions and intervention ==
Until 1979, both sides intended to resolve the conflict militarily. [[Chinese Civil War#Relationship between the two sides since 1950|Intermittent clashes]] occurred throughout the 1950s and 1960s, with escalations comprising the [[First Taiwan Strait crisis|First]] and [[Second Taiwan Strait crisis|Second Taiwan Strait crises]]. 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]] (in other words, to make Taiwan a [[Special Administrative Region]]).
=== PRC's condition on military intervention ===
Notwithstanding, the PRC government has issued triggers for an immediate war with Taiwan, most notably via its controversial [[Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China|Anti-Secession Law of 2005]]. These conditions are:
* if events occur leading to the ''separation'' of Taiwan from China ''in any name'', or
* if a major event occurs which would lead to Taiwan's separation from China, or
* if all possibility of peaceful unification is lost.
It has been interpreted that these criteria encompass the scenario of Taiwan developing nuclear weapons (''see main article'' [[Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction]]).
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'' [[Taiwan 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 Summer Olympics|2008 Olympic Games]] in Beijing.{{Fact|date=May 2007}} 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.<ref>{{cite news | pages=1 | title=Bush Opposes Taiwan Independence|date=[[December 9]], [[2003]]|publisher=[[Fox News]] | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105239,00.html}}</ref>
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.{{Fact|date=May 2007}} 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, although the PRC government never declares such deployment publicly.{{Fact|date=May 2007}}
=== Balance of power ===
The possibility of war, the close geographical proximity of [[Republic of China|ROC]]-controlled Taiwan and [[People's Republic of China|PRC]]-controlled mainland China, 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, while the ROC assumed a more defensive attitude by building and buying [[frigate]]s and missile [[destroyer]]s, and the PRC a more aggressive posture by developing long-range [[cruise missile]]s and supersonic [[Surface-to-surface missile]]s.
Although the [[People's Liberation Army Air Force]] is considered large, most of its fleet consists of older generation[[Chengdu J-7|J-7]] fighters (localized [[MiG-21]]s and Mig-21BIs), raising doubts over the PLAAF's ability to control Taiwan's airspace in the event of a conflict. Since mid-1990s China has been purchasing, and later localizing, [[SU-27]] based fighters. These Russian fighters, as well as their Chinese [[Shenyang J-11|J11A]] variants, are currently over 170 in number, and have increased the effectiveness of PLAAF's [[Beyond Visual Range missile|Beyond Visual Range]] (BVR) capabilities. The introduction of 60 new-generation [[Chengdu J-10|J10A]] fighters is anticipated to increase the PLAAF's firepower. China's acquisition of Russian [[Sukhoi Su-30|Su30MKKs]] further enhanced the PLAAF's [[air-to-ground]] support ability. The [[Republic of China Air Force|ROC's air force]], on the other hand, relies on Taiwan's second generation fighters, consisting of 150 US-built [[F-16 Fighting Falcon]]s, approximately 60 French-built [[Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000|Mirage 2000-5s]], and approximately 130 locally developed [[AIDC Ching-kuo|IDFs]] (Indigenous Defence Fighters). All of these ROC fighter jets are able to conduct [[BVR]] combat missions with BVR missiles, but the level of technology in mainland Chinese fighters is catching up.
In 2003, the ROC purchased four missile destroyers—the former [[USS Kidd (DDG-993)|USS ''Kidd'']] class, and expressed a strong interest in the [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke'' class]]. But with the growth of the PRC [[People's Liberation Army Navy|navy]] and [[PLAAF|air force]], some doubt that the ROC could withstand a determined invasion attempt from mainland China in the future. These concerns have led to a view in certain quarters that Taiwanese independence, if it is to be implemented, should be attempted as early as possible, while the ROC still has the capacity to prevail in an all-out military conflict. Over the past three decades, estimates of how long Taiwan can withstand a full-scale invasion from across the Strait without any outside help have decreased from three months to only six days.<ref>{{cite news | first=Rich | last=Chang | pages=3 | title=War simulations reveal communication problem |date=[[May 1]], [[2006]] | publisher=[[Taipei Times]] | url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/05/01/2003305538 }}</ref> Given such estimates, the US Navy has continued practicing "surging" its carrier groups, giving it the experience necessary to respond quickly to an attack on Taiwan.<ref>{{cite web|author=Dunnigan, James| year=2004 | month = [[July 7]]| title=US Navy Sticks it to China | work=Dirty Little Secrets | publisher = StragtegyPage.com | url=http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200477.asp | accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref> The US also collects data on the PRC's military deployments, through the use of [[spy satellite]]s, for example. It would take days, if not weeks, for China to prepare for a full assault on Taiwan.
However, numerous reports issued by the PRC, ROC and US militaries make wildly mutually contradictory statements about the possible defense of Taiwan.
Naturally, war contingencies are not being planned in a vacuum. In 1979, the [[Congress of the United States|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 Act is applied to Taiwan and the Pescadores, but not to Quemoy and Matsu). 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 (CV-63)|USS ''Kitty Hawk'']]. Although the stated purpose of the fleet is not Taiwanese defense, it can be safely assumed from past actions that that is one of the reasons why the fleet is stationed in those waters.
Starting in 2000, Japan renewed its defense obligations with the US and embarked on a rearmament program, partly in response to fears that Taiwan might be invaded. Some analysts believed that the PRC could launch [[pre-emptive]] strikes on military bases in Japan to deter US and Japanese forces from coming to Taiwan's aid. Japanese strategic planners also see an independent Taiwan as vital, not only because Taiwan controls valuable shipping routes, but also because its capture by China would make Japan more vulnerable. During [[World War II]], the US invaded the [[Philippines]], but another viable target to enable direct attacks on Japan would have been Taiwan (then known as Formosa). However, critics of the pre-emptive strike theory assert that the PRC would be loath to give Japan and the US such an excuse to intervene.
A Taiwan software program simulating an attack by China reflects a win for Taiwan.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267984,00.html Fox News: Computer Simulation Has Taiwan Beating China in War, Taiwanese Military Says]</ref><ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070424-0208-taiwan-china.html Sign On San Diego]</ref>
=== Third Taiwan Strait Crisis ===
[[Image:ROCN kang ding class.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Republic of China Navy|ROCS]] [[Kang Ding class frigate|''Kang Ding''-class frigate]] with S-70C helicopter]]<!--ROCS=Republic of China Ship, USS=United States Ship, etc.-->
In 1996, the PRC began conducting [[Third Taiwan Strait Crisis|military exercises near Taiwan]], and launched several [[ballistic missile]]s over the island. The saber-rattling was done in response to the possible re-election of then President [[Lee Teng-hui]]. The United States, under 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, far from intimidating the Taiwanese population, gave Lee a boost that pushed his share of votes over 50 percent.{{Fact|date=May 2007}}
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.
== Developments since 2004 and future prospects ==
{{update-section}}
=== Judicial ===
On October 24, 2006, Dr. Roger C. S. Lin led a group of Taiwanese residents, including members of the [[Taiwan Nation Party]], to file a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia]]. According to their lawyer, Mr. Charles Camp, "[t]he Complaint asks the Court to declare whether the Taiwanese plaintiffs, including members of the Taiwan Nation Party, have certain rights under the United States Constitution".<ref>{{cite news | title=Law Offices of Charles H_ Camp News |accessdate =2007-01-28| | url=http://www.charlescamplaw.com/news/index.php }}</ref> Their central argument is that, following Japanese renunciation of all rights and claims to Taiwan, Taiwan came under U.S. jurisdiction and remains so to this day. After an extension was granted, the United States government responded with a Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2007, mostly on the basis that the United States government has not waived its [[sovereign immunity]], that this is a [[political question]] not suitable for a court to determine, and that the Plaintiffs failed to nominate a specific grievance for relief.<ref>{{cite web | title=US Government Response and Motion to Dismiss | accessdate =2007-04-23 | url=http://taiwankey.net/dc/usgvtreply.pdf}}</ref>
The Plaintiffs were scheduled to reply on or before January 29, but later also extended to February 16. The bulk of the rebuttal was concentrated on countering the defendants' 'non-justiciable political question' argument, citing the Baker/Goldwater standard. Plaintiffs next argued that they have suffered an injury-in-fact from being denied a recognized nationality, and cites several statues and the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SPFT) in which the court was given jurisdiction and the United States waived its sovereign immunity over the matter. In the last sections, the Plaintiffs argued that they have stated specific claims for relief and that the law does not require them to introduce all or any claims when filing the complaint initially.<ref>{{cite web | title=Plaintiff's Rebuttal and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss | accessdate =2007-04-23 | url=http://taiwankey.net/dc/opposition.pdf}}</ref>
The Government was scheduled to reply by March 9, 2007, but once again an extension of two weeks was granted. Nonetheless, on March 23, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the original complaint was denied "as moot [i]n light of the Amended Complaint filed" by the Plaintiffs on March 19. The Amended Complaint remains largely the same as the original, with minor structural changes, additional legal references, and, importantly, the inclusion of the Plaintiffs' failed attempts at applying for a [[U.S. passport]] on March 29, 2006, as a specific grievance.<ref>{{cite web | title=Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief | accessdate =2007-04-23 | url=http://taiwankey.net/dc/twamended.htm}}</ref>
The United States of America, however, again filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 5. The new motion specifies that America's legal relationship with Taiwan "derives solely and exclusively" from Executive Order 13014, and cites the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954 which states that "'territories' shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores" as evidence that the United States then considered Taiwan part of the ROC. The Defendant asserted that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, mostly on the basis that sovereignty over a territory is a non-justiciable political question. The motion also argued that Plaintiffs' claim is not one for which relief may be granted, on the grounds that the U.S. does not hold ''de jure'' sovereignty over Taiwan, and that therefore the Plaintiffs are not U.S. nationals who, under the Immigration Nationality Act, may bring a declaratory judgement action.
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on April 19 to counter these arguments, stating that their complaint has been mischaracterized. The opening arguments are that the SFPT is the 'supreme law of the land' and overrides Executive Order 13014, and that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations specified no modification of the existing legal status of Taiwan by the Mutual Defense Treaty. Most of the motion was then devoted to arguing that this is a justiciable political case, as opposed to political questions non-justiciable under the Baker/Goldwater standard, and argued that the Court has power to determine the extent to which U.S. laws apply regardless of the Executive's position.<ref>{{cite web | title=Plaintiff's New Rebuttal and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss | accessdate =2007-04-23 | url=http://taiwankey.net/dc/oppositionaa.pdf }}</ref>
The Plaintiffs filed 31 pages of Discovery Requests on June 26, 2007.<ref>{{cite web | title=Plaintiff's First Set of Document Requests, Interrogatories, and Admissions
| accessdate =2007-06-28 | url=http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tw1discovery.pdf }}</ref>
The district court ruled March 18, 2008 that the case indeed presents a political question; as such, the court dismissed the complaint.<ref>{{cite web | title= Civil Action No. 2006-1825 LIN et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | accessdate=2008-04-16 | url=https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1825-24 }}</ref> Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, on March 31, 2008, and the appeal process is proceeding.<ref>{{cite web | title=USCA Court Documents | accessdate=2008-06-17 | url=http://www.taiwankey.net/usca/uscadocs.htm }}</ref>
=== Political ===
Although the situation is confusing, most observers believe that it is stable with enough understandings and [[gentlemen's agreement]]s 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 (Republic of China)|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 [[ROC presidential election, 2004|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 announced in July 2002 that if the PRC does not respond to Taiwan's goodwill, Taiwan may "go on its own ... road."
With Chen's re-election in 2004, Beijing's prospects for a speedier resolution were dampened, though they seemed strengthened again following the Pan-Blue majority in the [[ROC legislative election, 2004|2004 legislative elections]]. However, public opinion in Taiwan reacted unfavorably towards the [[Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China|anti-secession law]] passed by the PRC in March 2005. Following two high profile visits by KMT and PFP party leaders to the PRC, the balance of public opinion appears to be ambiguous, with the Pan-Green Coalition gaining a majority in the [[ROC National Assembly election, 2005|2005 National Assembly elections]], but the Pan-Blue Coalition scoring a landslide victory in the 2005 municipal 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 (politics)|spin]] the results to support their point of view.{{Fact|date=January 2008}}{{Dubious|date=April 2008}}
According to a November 2005 poll from the Mainland Affairs Commission, 37.7% of people living in the ROC favor maintaining the status quo until a decision can be made in the future, 18.4% favors maintaining the status quo indefinitely, 14% favors maintaining the status quo until eventual independence, 12% favors maintaining the status quo until eventual reunification, 10.3% favors independence as soon as possible, and 2.1% favors reunification as soon as possible. According to the same poll, 78.3% are opposed to the "[[One Country, Two Systems]]" model, which was used for [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]], while 10.4% is in favor.<ref>{{cite web | title=民意調查:「民眾對當前兩岸關係之看法」結果摘要 | accessdate =2006-10-18 | publisher=行政院大陸委員會 | url= http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9411/po9411ch.htm }}</ref>
According to a June 2008 poll from a Taiwanese mainstream media [[TVBS]], 58% of people living in Taiwan favor maintaining the status quo, 19% favors independence, and 8% favors unification. According to the same poll, if status quo is not an option and the ones who were surveyed must choose between "Independence" or "Unification", 65% are in favor of independence while 19% would opt for unification. The same poll also reveals that 68% of the respondents identify themselves as "Taiwanese" while 18% would call themselves "Chinese". Furthermore, when it comes to preference in which national identity to be used in international organizations, 54% of people in the survey indicated that they prefer "Taiwan" and only 25% of the people voted for "Chinese Taipei". It seems the Taiwanese have stronger inclination to support independence and Taiwanese identity after 8 years of [[DPP]] adminsitration.<ref>{{cite web | title=民意調查:兩會復談前國族認同民調 | accessdate =2008-06-20 | publisher=TVBS | url= http://www.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/DL_DB/even/200806/even-20080610175239.pdf }}</ref>
=== Changing Taiwan’s status with respect to the ROC constitution ===
From the perspective of the [[Constitution of the Republic of China|ROC constitution]], which the mainstream political parties such as the [[Kuomintang|KMT]] and [[Democratic Progressive Party|DPP]] currently respect and recognize, (even though the procedures for the incorporation of Taiwan into ROC territory as specified in Article 4 have never been completed), 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 also need to amend or abolish the ROC constitution and redraft a new constitution. Passing an amendment requires an unusually broad political consensus, which includes approval from three-quarters of a quorum of members of the Legislative Yuan. This quorum requires at least three-quarters of all members of the Legislature. After passing the legislature, the amendments need ratification from at least fifty percent of all eligible voters of the ROC, ''irrespective'' of voter turnout.
Given these harsh constitutional requirements, neither the pan-greens nor 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 ==
===Political status vs. Taiwan issue===
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" (台弯问题). The ROC government does not like these terminologies, emphasizing that it should be called the "Mainland issue" or "Mainland question", because from the ROC's point of view, the PRC is making an issue out of or creating a problem out of Taiwan. Others use the term "Taiwan Strait Question" because it implies nothing about sovereignty and because "[[Cross-Strait relations]]" is a term used by both the ROC and the PRC to describe their interactions. However, this term is also objectionable to some because it still implies that there is an issue, which they feel is created only by the PRC.
===De-facto vs. de-jure===
The use of the terms ''[[de-facto]]'' and ''[[de-jure]]'' to describe Taiwan's as well as the Republic of China's status as a state is itself a contentious issue. This partially stems from the lack of precedents regarding derecognized, but still constitutionally functioning states. For instance, it is regularly argued that Taiwan satisfies the requirements of statehood at international law as stated in the [[Montevideo Convention]]. At the same time, there is continued debate on whether UN membership or recognition as a state by the UN is a decisive feature of statehood (since it represents broad recognition by the international community); the debate arises because non-state entities can often satisfy the Montevideo Convention factors, while the list of states recognised by the UN, for the most part, correlate well with entities recognised as states by customary international law. If the latter argument is accepted, then the Republic of China may have ceased to be a state post-1971 as a matter of international law ("''de jure''"), yet continued to otherwise function as the state that it previously was recognised as ("''de facto''").
From the 1990s onwards, media wire services sometimes describe Taiwan as having de-facto independence, whereas the Republic of China has always considered itself as a continuously functioning de-jure state.
==References==
{{Reflist|2}}
== See also ==
{{portal|China}}
{{portal|Taiwan}}
{{wikinewspar2|Pentagon report reflects concerns over China's increased military|Chinese General threatens U.S. with nuclear weapons over possible Taiwan Strait conflict, Beijing downplays comment}}
* [[History of the Republic of China]]
* [[Politics of the Republic of China]]
* [[Foreign relations of the Republic of China]]
* [[Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China]]
* [[228 Incident]], for historical context of ROC-Taiwanese conflict
* [[China and the United Nations]]
* [[Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction]]
* [[People's Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction]]
* [[Chinese reunification]]
* [[Four-stage Theory of the Republic of China]]
* [[Legal status of Taiwan]]
* [[Mainland Affairs Council]] of the ROC
* [[Military Power of the People's Republic of China]]
* [[National Unification Council]] of the ROC
* [[Taiwan Affairs Office]] of the PRC
* [[Taiwan independence]]
* [[Taiwan Province]]
* [[Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China|Claimed Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China]]
==Further reading==
*Bush, R. & O'Hanlon, M. (2007). ''A War Like No Other: The Truth About China's Challenge to America''. Wiley. ISBN 0471986771
*Bush, R. (2006). ''Untying the Knot: Making Peace in the Taiwan Strait''. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0815712901
*Carpenter, T. (2006). ''America's Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan''. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1403968411
*Cole, B. (2006). ''Taiwan's Security: History and Prospects''. Routledge. ISBN 0415365813
*Copper, J. (2006). ''Playing with Fire: The Looming War with China over Taiwan''. Praeger Security International General Interest. ISBN 0275988880
*Federation of American Scientists et al. (2006). [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/Book2006.pdf Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning]
*Gill, B. (2007). ''Rising Star: China's New Security Diplomacy''. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0815731469
*Shirk, S. (2007). ''China: Fragile Superpower: How China's Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195306090
*Tsang, S. (2006). ''If China Attacks Taiwan: Military Strategy, Politics and Economics''. Routledge. ISBN 0415407850
*Tucker, N.B. (2005). ''Dangerous Strait: the U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis''. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231135645
== External links ==
{{Wikisourcepar|US-PRC Joint Communique}}
*[http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007517004.asp The Menacing Missiles of Taiwan]
*[http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp15.htm Australian White Paper on Taiwan relations]
*[http://newton.uor.edu/Departments&Programs/AsianStudiesDept/china-taiwan.html Cross-Strait Relations between China and Taiwan] collection of documents and articles.
*[http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/detail.asp?table=WhitePaper&title=White%20Papers%20On%20Taiwan%20Issue&m_id=4 PRC Government White Paper: The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue]
*[http://www.taiwandocuments.org/ Taiwan Documents Project]
*[http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tpolstat.htm Resolving the Political Status of Taiwan through the US Court system]
*[http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/index1-e.htm Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council]
*[http://www.taiwanadvice.com/harintmcexc.htm Questions of Sovereignty -- the Montevideo Convention and Territorial Cession] Comprehensive overview of Taiwan's presumed qualifying criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention, by Richard W. Hartzell
*[http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tdocpol.htm Documents on the Political Status of Taiwan]
*[http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Pastreich/PastreichOP.pdf ''Sovereignty, Wealth, Culture, and Technology: Mainland China and Taiwan Grapple with the Parameters of the "Nation-State" in the 21st Century'']
{{Chinese Civil War}}
{{Politics of Taiwan footer}}
[[Category:Cross-Strait interactions]]
[[Category:Politics of the Republic of China]]
[[Category:Politics of the People's Republic of China]]
[[de:Taiwan-Konflikt]]
[[es:Estatus político de Taiwán]]
[[fr:Statut de Taïwan]]
[[zh-classical:臺灣問題]]
[[ko:타이완 문제]]
[[he:מעמדה הבינלאומי של טאיוואן]]
[[ms:Taraf politik Taiwan]]
[[ja:台湾問題]]
[[pt:Estatuto de Taiwan]]
[[simple:Political status of Taiwan]]
[[sv:Taiwans politiska status]]
[[vi:Vị thế chính trị Đài Loan]]
[[zh-yue:台灣問題]]
[[zh:台灣問題]]