[Text/Observer Network Columnist Tian Feilong]
Recently, US President Biden announced the "defending Taiwan", US Secretary of State Blinken issued a formal policy statement to support Taiwan's accession to the "United Nations system" (UN system), and A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs hit back severely, indicating that the US move will pose a "subversive huge risk" to Sino-US relations.
The US side even wants to "subvert" the "Resolution 2758" that restored the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China in 1971, inciting distorted interpretations of the provisions with its hegemony and the power of the ally system, and fight for the so-called international legal space and rights for Taiwan.
The Taiwan authorities' "unprecedented" political support for the United States was very surprised. Tsai Ing-wen clearly recognized the "station in Taiwan" of the US military and claimed that the "Resolution 2758" did not resolve the issues of Taiwan's sovereignty and international status, and tried to provoke a full-scale war on the "internationalization of the Taiwan issue."
Blinken interacted with Tsai Ing-wen on Twitter to hype Taiwan-related issues
coordinated with the United States' hollowing out operation on the "one China" policy. Its ally system, especially the EU level, has passed a resolution to develop "political relations" with Taiwan. Small European countries such as Lithuania , have developed official relations with Taiwan without restraint, allowing the establishment of "Taiwan Representative Office". Even mainstream countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany also have a countercurrent trend of "moving from the news". As for Japan, which has the intersection of colonial history and geopolitical correlation with Taiwan, it is even tougher and speculative. Australia's Li Ling is so stupid that it threatens to fight side by side with the United States on the Taiwan issue and resort to military means.
These Cold War hostility, which began with the extreme interaction between the United States and "Taiwan independence" forces and affected the so-called democratic alliance system in the West and the extreme challenges to China's national sovereignty, security and development interests, pose a serious threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait and the final reunification of the cross-strait, and also plunged the people on the island into fear and resentment of the war and have no way to be peaceful.
Although after the re-election of the Kuomintang chairman, Zhu Lilun returned to "1992 Consensus ", the status and political leadership of the Kuomintang's opposition party limit the significance of cross-strait political breakthroughs this return. At the same time, the wavering of the US "one China" policy has caused cross-strait relations to suffer more serious threats and damages.
The United States' "Taiwan card" started to play wildly, the "Taiwan independence" forces danced with the wind, and the extreme interaction between the United States and Taiwan is like the openness and transparency of the long-term "political affair game" between the two sides, naked and shameless, completely ignoring China's sovereignty dignity and the political tacit understanding that the two sides have maintained for decades. However, the "one country, two systems" Taiwan plan proposed by the mainland in 2019 was regarded as a united front and hostile plan, and was comprehensively stigmatized and regulated by the Taiwan authorities, and it is difficult to have a rational discussion atmosphere and a response and promotion with political consultation significance.
The forces around the Taiwan issue are increasingly entangled, causing great risks to the Far East international law order and the geopolitical pattern after World War II, as well as the further "cold warization" of Sino-US relations. The United States' long-term hegemony and double-faced practices not only caused the bankruptcy of its political morality and credit, but also posed a serious threat to regional peace and security, and gradually moved towards the opposition of the self-proclaimed "world police", namely the "public enemy of the world".
In the process of extreme struggle between various forces, the pace of breaking the Taiwan issue has accelerated. How to finally resolve it is not far from the perspective of political will, practical logic and historical experience.
Taiwan issue complex legal background
Taiwan issue is a legacy of the Chinese revolution and the construction of modern states. It has been mixed with a certain degree of international law and geopolitical struggle factors under the long-term confrontation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and the manipulation of Western forces such as the United States, forming an extremely complex "big space" political problem in the Far East region. It is related to the following factors in terms of legal nature, and needs to be carefully interpreted in detail:
First, from the civil war legal theory, as the result of the political competition between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, the "Republic of China" has long lost the legitimacy of the orthodox regime.The "Abolishing the Six Laws" in February 1949 is a denial of its legitimacy and a political abandonment of the Chinese people of the regime. However, there is a national public will to eliminate separatist and confrontation through political consultation and create a completely unified order.
Secondly, from the perspective of international law, the Chiang Kai-shek regime continued to occupy the UN seat from 1949 to 1971 and cooperated with the United States on issues involving China's fundamental interests, betraying the country, nation and people. "Resolution 2758" confirms the legitimacy of the founding of New China and its representation of the Chinese people, denies the political legitimacy of the Taiwan authorities in the sense of international law and national representation, and places the Taiwan issue in principle as an internal political issue within the scope of China's sovereignty.
Third, from the perspective of Sino-US relations and US hegemony, the Taiwan issue is the core issue of establishing diplomatic relations between China and the United States and maintaining diplomatic relations. " Three Joint Communiqués of China and the United States" in particular, the "one China" policy established in it is the cornerstone of stability of Sino-US relations, but the United States demonstrates hegemony and double-faced practices, uses the Taiwan Relations Law to substantially prevent cross-strait reunification, and deal with the mainland with the " Three Joint Communiqués of ", and uses the "six guarantees" to appease Taiwan, trying to reap profits and prevent China's national rejuvenation and strong development in a long-term and structural manner.
Fourth, from the perspective of democratization and democratic politics on the island, the "nationalist" component and identity of the Kuomintang representatives have gradually declined, and the "natural independence" component of nativism and the youth generation has been rising. The Democratic Progressive Party launched a Cold War and Confrontation against the mainland in the name of democracy, and at the same time, it sought excessive protection from the United States as an "allier", constructing the Taiwan issue as an issue of opposition between democracy and non-democratic camps and consolidation of the "outpost" of the United States' hegemony and interests. In the process of deep binding of this concept and interests, everything is ready, and fantasizing that the mainland collapses or the US-China war will be successful.
An inevitable focus of the legal struggle involving Taiwan is the UN's 1971 "Resolution 2758". This is an international law document reviewed and voted by UN General Assembly , with the theme of "restoring the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations". What the resolution of the conference wanted to solve was the issue of "one China"'s international law representation. There has never been a problem of "two Chinas" under the framework of the United Nations, but only a problem of who represents "one China". "One China" has always been the basic premise of the United Nations' work involving China, and it is also a consensus on international law generally recognized by the international community. "Resolution 2758" does not solve the "one China" issue, it is not a problem, but a question of who is the legal representative of "one China" within the United Nations system.
The main contents of this resolution include:
First, "Review", and the legal basis for the resolution is " United Nations Charter ". As a founding member state, China has the right to exercise relevant legal rights, and the specific representatives of the exercise of rights have undergone legitimate changes in the sense of domestic law. The United Nations General Assembly confirms it in accordance with the Charter in order to better cooperate with China and give full play to China's constructive role in world peace and development;
Second, "consider", believes that the resolution has substantial reasons, that is, restoring the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China will generate two benefits to the United Nations, including maintaining the UN Charter and the cause that the UN must engage in in accordance with the Charter. The United Nations takes peace and development as its main responsibility, and the legal solution to the issue of China's representation will help the progress of the cause of the United Nations. Most countries in the international community who voted for it recognize and agree with this reason;
Third, "recognition", confirms that the People's Republic of China is China's only legal representative in the United Nations Organization, and is also one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council . This is an update on China's representative qualifications and representative status of the five permanent members under the framework of the United Nations;
Fourth, "decision", this part of the content has the compulsory effect of international law, specifically including restoring all rights of the People's Republic of China, recognizing that its government representative is the only legal representative within the United Nations organization, and expelling all representatives of the United Nations and its affiliated institutions originally occupied by Chiang Kai-shek.
"Resolution 2758" is a major victory in the struggle for international law in the People's Republic of China, and it completely resolves the issue of "one China"'s full representation in the United Nations. The Taiwan authorities and their successors no longer have any legal rights and representative rights within the "United Nations system".
Although the resolution itself does not mention the word "Taiwan", since the United Nations framework has never raised objections and challenges to the basic facts and legal principles of "one China" and Taiwan belongs to "one China", and the DPP government has always been the successor of Taiwan's local separatist regime in terms of law, we can draw the following basic conclusion:
First, the resolution "2758" completely resolves the issue of representation of "one China". Taiwan's agenda for participating in international organizations and related activities must seek solutions under the "one China" framework. The subject of its consultation and approval can only be the People's Republic of China established by the resolution, and cannot bypass this subject and seek help from the United States or other subjects that do not have any legal qualifications;
Secondly, Taiwan's democratization and the DPP's governance are only political evolution and internal circulation on the island, and do not involve the issue of Taiwan's international legal status change at all. Moreover, the DPP government, as the successor of the island's regime, has never obtained any international legal status and rights beyond the former Kuomintang government. The DPP's pursuit of the undecided position of Taiwan and the existence of "Taiwan independence" in international space is directly contrary to "Resolution 2758", and is an illegal act that challenges the legitimacy of the UN Charter and resolution.
The United States' "double-faced" technique and extreme game
Of course, the United States voted against the vote in the "Resolution 2758", and at the same time gathered some so-called allies to vote against it, but it could not reverse the collective will of the international community, and could not reverse the democratic procedures and normative power of the United Nations General Assembly.
As an imperial actor of "democratic globalization", the United States should support and implement the results of this international democracy despite opposing the results of the voting for international democracy in accordance with the political ethics of democratic majority decisions. However, what the United States has done since the resolution came into effect shows that it does not truly respect and adhere to the majority democratic choice of the international community, but instead supports Taiwan with hegemony logic and double-faced methods for long-term support for Taiwan to maintain international existence and continue to create cross-strait tensions, which is the biggest obstacle to peaceful reunification of the cross-strait.
After the passage of the United Nations "Resolution 2758", the Chinese delegation laughed happily.
In order to interfere in Taiwan affairs and prevent cross-strait reunification, the United States has continuously formulated Taiwan-related legislation in the form of domestic law, implemented the illegal long-arm jurisdiction of and "quasi-colonial" and strong control and manipulation in various aspects such as security, diplomacy, and elections, and in a substantial sense, derogated Taiwan's democracy into a dependent internal "autonomous management democracy".
In fact, under the strict control of the United States, the so-called Taiwan democracy cannot independently decide to move towards "unification" or to move towards "Taiwan independence". It must make prescribed actions within the scope permitted by the interests of the United States and implement some optional actions that do not violate the interests of the United States, thus the emergence of secret and informal "quasi-colonialization".
"Three Joint Communiqués of China and the United States" are usually considered as the basic consensus between China and the United States on the Taiwan issue. Its core connotation is "one China", but this consensus has suffered multiple weakening and suppression in the US legal system, leading to the substantial voiding of the "one China" policy:
First, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 is the basic law of the United States involving Taiwan, which sets support clauses for Taiwan and restriction clauses on cross-strait reunification. Since then, the United States has been constantly retreating its position under this basic legal framework and relevant legislation and policies to "arm" Taiwan and condon "Taiwan independence";
First, the "Three Joint Communiqués of China and the United States" are regarded as an administrative agreement, which is a government commitment, not Congressional legislation, and is considered lower than the Taiwan Relations Act in the US legal system, thus leaving room for American politicians and anti-China forces to use Congressional legislation to weaken the "one China" policy;
Third, the United States is playing with a double-faced approach. In 1982, the Reagan administration made "six guarantees" to Taiwan, and was included in the US's "Asian Reassurance Initiative" at the end of 2018, further reversing Sino-US relations;
Fourth, the United States has comprehensively curbed China with a "new Cold War" mentality in recent years, and has frequently legislated legislation on issues related to Taiwan, including the Taiwan Travel Law and other relevant laws, and even legal bills involving Taiwan's security are being promoted.
On the Taiwan issue, the United States has changed its previous stability maintenance strategy that generally tends to "maintain the status quo" and has begun to clearly tend to support "Taiwan independence" forces and mobilize Taiwan to fight against the mainland, differentiate China's development forces, and undermine the prospect of cross-strait reunification. Some extreme hawks have tried to provoke the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Taiwan, regressing the state of Sino-US relations to before "1979".
Strictly from the perspective of legal theory and general provisions, the so-called "six guarantees" of the United States against Taiwan violates the basic position of the "Three Joint Communiqués of China and the United States", which just proves the "double-faced" techniques and rogue diplomatic habits of the United States.
"Six Guarantees" refer to six commitments made by the Reagan administration to Taiwan on July 14, 1982. At that time, the chairman of the American Association in Taiwan, Li Jieming, , conveyed to Chiang Ching-kuo, the specific content is: not agreeing to set a date for stopping arms sales in Taiwan; not agreeing to negotiate with mainland China in advance on arms sales in Taiwan; not playing a good office between mainland China and Taiwan; not revising the "Taiwan Relations Act"; not changing the United States' position on Taiwan's "sovereignty"; not forcing Taiwan to negotiate with mainland China.
The substantive content of these guarantees is seriously challenging and destructive sovereignty against China, and has been repeatedly confirmed, confirmed and implemented in the long-term policy practice of the United States towards Taiwan. Therefore, Blinken's recent escalating provocations about supporting Taiwan's accession to the "United Nations system" are not groundless, but the natural exposure and logical development of the United States' consistent hegemony and interventionism under the conditions of the new Cold War between China and the United States.
U.S. Secretary of State Blinken (data photo/Reuters )
As for the so-called "re-linking" between China and the United States and the direct meeting between China and the US heads of the United States, it is completely impossible to drive Sino-US relations to return to the previous relatively eased pattern. It is just a partial and temporary compromise after the "actuarialization" of the overall interests of the United States. The comprehensive strategic competition and confrontation trend between China and the United States cannot be reversed.
The United States continues to implement the "two-faced" approach on issues related to Taiwan. Every time it promises that the "one China" policy has not changed, it will definitely take substantial steps in supporting "Taiwan independence" and challenge the bottom line of cross-strait relations.The United States’ handling of the Taiwan issue is not only a "two-faced person", but also increasingly presents a trend and orientation of "one virtual and one real":
First, playing "virtual" in the "one China" policy. Whenever China protests fiercely or responds fiercely with military deterrence, the US official promises in a perfunctory manner that the "one China" policy position has not changed, but will not make any further specific commitments and self-discipline;
Secondly, play "real" on the issues of "Taiwan independence" and "Taiwan card", uncontrollable arms sales to Taiwan, and more closely tie and incorporate Taiwan's military system into the global control system of the US military. The continuous arms sales are by no means as simple as selling weapons to make money, but rather to provide stricter vertical guidance and control of the Taiwan military in terms of security intelligence, system maintenance, technical training, technology transfer and even weapon manufacturing, encourage Taiwan to "resist unification with force" and condone "Taiwan independence" step by step towards cross-strait confrontation deep waters and extreme dangerous areas.
The US ally system is also increasingly shaking in its stance on Taiwan, some dancing with the wind, some perfunctory, and some speculative and proactive. The "Lithuanian Effect" is worth paying attention to and cracking. Taiwan itself is not a direct "ally" of the United States, but the essence of US-Taiwan relations has surpassed the general ally level. In fact, the "one China" policy has gradually become a "convenient band-aid" in US diplomatic rhetoric. You can just post it wherever you bleed, but you never reflect on the root cause of the bleeding and seek solutions.
These "double-faced" practices of the United States and their rogue personality under the habit of hegemony have gradually lost China's diplomatic trust and political tolerance. Yang Jiechi's long rebuttal in the "Anchorage Meeting" in mid-March 2021 is representative, and it essentially sets a precedent for China and the United States to "look at diplomacy at the same time". It also marks that China will treat all Cold War actions and containment strategic measures in the United States under the conditions of distrust of the United States and thinking more independently and taking action more independently. The Taiwan issue is no exception.
The deepening of "Looking at Diplomacy" is reflected in the "Tianjin Meeting" in July 2021. Among them, the "two lists" and "three bottom lines" proposed by China have the institutional significance of actively planning the new framework of Sino-US relations and constitute the background conditions for future negotiations and struggles between China and the United States. Dare to make public and systematic provisions to the United States and use this as the basis for negotiation is a paradigm revolution in China's diplomacy against the United States, and it is also a rational progress in China's anti-intervention, anti-sanctions, and anti-hegemony struggle against the United States.
The puzzle of the Taiwan issue breaking the deadlock and the future
" Peaceful reunification , One country, two systems " is China's consistent and best solution to the Taiwan issue, but its success requires meeting a series of internal and external conditions:
First, the internal cross-strait political agreement, that is, the minimum consensus and positive willingness to resolve the Taiwan issue in the "one country, two systems" method and re-arrange Taiwan's governance system. The "one country, two systems" Taiwan plan is proposed and unfolded under this premise, but the actual conditions are not optimistic;
Second, the external international political reconciliation, that is, the United States and other Western forces can tolerate the arrangement of "one country, two systems" and accept the interests and cooperation conditions.
If the above internal and external conditions are still met, the Taiwan issue can refer to the Hong Kong model and add its own particularity to the "one country, two systems" Taiwan plan. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that the world is easy and the time is changing, and the above internal and external conditions are deteriorating and deteriorating. The various difficulties and challenges analyzed above are proof.
We must objectively view the fluctuations in the demonstration and influence of "one country, two systems" against Taiwan:
On the one hand, the storm of Hong Kong's 2019 amendment bill and the substantive entry of the state power of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the new election law brought about by this has refreshed the system and legal system of the "one country, two systems", resulting in the "one country, two systems" hidden in the logic of time and practice, and "one country, two systems" to "before" the national rationality and authority hidden in the logic of time and practice. Objectively, it not only creates certain challenges and pressure on the understanding and acceptance of Hong Kong society, but also creates a receptive bottleneck in the prospects of "one country, two systems" and its own rights and interests. The DPP has exhausted the changes in Hong Kong to reap political dividends, bind and intimidate the Taiwanese people, distort the complete legal principles of "one country, two systems", and fully resist any force in Taiwan's active response to the "one country, two systems" Taiwan plan, causing a certain "hanging" state on the agenda;
On the other hand, Hong Kong's new "one country, two systems" system and its systematic legal principles, especially the institutional legitimacy centered on "comprehensive governance" and national security, election security, patriot governance of Hong Kong and integrated development, still has huge gaps in theoretical interpretation, propaganda, dialogue, interaction and identity construction. It has not yet achieved decisive advantages in direct competition with the "democratic values" of the Democratic Progressive Party and the United States, resulting in a certain gap and shortcomings in the mainland's discourse power and dominance in Taiwan. The way and techniques to make up for it are not yet formed, and it cannot be effective in the short term.
National rejuvenation faces "great changes unseen in a century", and the same is true for "one country, two systems". As a major strategic and institutional innovation of reform and opening up and the long-term modernization of the country, "one country, two systems" is pacifism and developmentalism, and stakeholders need to have overlapping consensus on the core values of peace and development.
If Taiwan blindly seeks "Taiwan independence", if the United States blindly uses the "Taiwan card" as the ultimate Cold War use, if the extreme interaction between the United States and Taiwan, as well as the "Taiwan independence" and the US "quasi-colonial" control of Taiwan can no longer be covered up and concealed by the superficial endorsement of the "one China" policy, the Taiwan issue will always break the deadlock.
Go further. The Taiwan issue belongs to the core content of China's national interests and is a major historical mission of national rejuvenation. Therefore, any actions and measures related to final unification are fully justified and legitimized under the conditions that the peace method cannot be achieved.
The Anti-Secession Law enacted in 2005 continues the consistent policy position of "not promising to give up the use of force", and "legalizes" it into a clear clause to resolve the Taiwan issue in a "non-peaceful way", namely the three situations stipulated in Article 8 of the law: (1) The fact that the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces caused Taiwan to split from China in any name or in any way; (2) Major events that will lead to the split from Taiwan from China; (3) The possibility of peaceful reunification is completely lost.
Under the conditions of the tension in cross-strait relations and the moment of breaking the deadlock, there are constant rational calls for or suggestion that the state be prepared for the system and force of "non-peaceful methods", and make detailed interpretations or operational revisions of relevant legal provisions, or directly formulate the "National Unification Law" with stronger execution based on the framework of the Constitution and the Anti-Secession Law and combined with the new internal and external situations and conditions.
If the peace method is exhausted, rather than the peaceful method can achieve complete reunification of the cross-strait and permanent peace and sustainable development of Taiwan at the minimum cost under the guarantee of the rule of law and rational planning, the "home-field unity" and the ultimate way to break the deadlock on the Taiwan issue are completely legitimate and legal, and are fully understandable and recognized by the international community. This is also fundamentally in line with the legal principles of national sovereign rights maintained by the UN Charter and the normative principles of "Resolution 2758", and is more in line with the grand ideals and long-term interests of national rejuvenation and a community with a shared future for mankind.
As for the "any name" of the "Taiwan independence" forces (including populist "democracy" that is infinitely abused and has only the meaning of bundled and extorted), "any way" (including the rejection of unification by force, legal "Taiwan independence", referendum independence, etc.), and any hegemonic intervention by the United States (including its allies) will expose its illegality, harm and ultimate weakness in this historical process and the implementation of the law, and will not become a lasting force to prevent China's complete unification and national rejuvenation. If the "Taiwan independence" forces and the United States have learned historical lessons and understood how to understand and respect the legitimate rights and interests of the Chinese nation, they can understand and accept the final breakthrough of the Taiwan issue.
In short, the Taiwan issue is essentially a historical legacy issue within China's national construction and sovereign order. Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are the only legitimate subject to solving this problem. The only legal government representing "one China", that is, the government of the People's Republic of China, has full representation of national interests and the constitutional authorization to carry out active legal actions and related actions on cross-strait reunification, and assume the historical mission and political responsibility of national rejuvenation and the realization of cross-strait leapfrog permanent peace and development.
In this process, the inherent unification force within Taiwan and the understanding and recognition that unification is the new awakening force of Taiwan's inevitable destiny. There will be collective reflection and action. This is the product of the collision and combination of the "great unification" conscience ethics within Chinese culture and the real relationship between the mainland's dominance pressure in the real relationship between the cross-strait. The corresponding "Taiwan independence" forces' voice and tricks and techniques to intimidate Taiwanese people will gradually become invalid and will be severely sanctioned and excluded by relevant sanctions laws from the mainland.
As for the illegal intervention and Cold War confrontation between external forces such as the United States, within a larger world system and in the process of China's decisive national rejuvenation and the new world order with the "community of shared future for mankind" as the ideal framework, it will only accelerate the loss of its hegemony and gradually withdraw from the central stage of world history.
This historical, political and strategic space "rise east and fall west" and the complex extrusion of the island's public opinion fission, the turn of surrounding forces, the integration of Asia, the decline of American forces and the structural changes of the macro world system are the living contemporary historical processes, and China is at the center of a historical role that has to bear, and must carry the burden forward and become a responsible rational force to promote change and reconstruction.
On the Taiwan issue, peaceful reunification is not a complete loss of opportunity, but the destruction of the foundation, conditions and direction of the "Taiwan independence" forces and the US and Western forces on the peaceful reunification of cross-strait has approached the extreme dangerous situation of "subversive huge risks". From historical experience, the Chinese nation is not afraid of any extreme risks in terms of its fundamental interests and long-term development prospects. "Crossing the Yalu River" typically demonstrates the spirit of the Chinese nation, the national will and the legitimate pursuit of lasting peace and development. As the issue of China's own reunification, it is impossible for any accidents or exceptions that lose its sense of direction and ultimate structural future.
The breakthrough and final solution of the Taiwan issue itself is a comprehensive historical test of the entire foundation and achievements of national rejuvenation and China's modernization, and is also a structural stereotype of China's international status and the role of the world system. We must have such cultural confidence and historical confidence to deal with all changes and challenges on the Taiwan issue, and shoulder the great mission and rational responsibility in the process of historic struggle and overall national maturity.
Taiwan will definitely have a better future, because the cross-strait will definitely be unified in the end, and Taiwan will surely be able to share the full achievements and bright prospects of the new globalization process promoted by national rejuvenation and China.
The God of Destiny has been summoned, the unified dimension of national rejuvenation has unfolded firmly and orderly, and time has begun in a new order and history.
This article is an exclusive article by Observer.com. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's opinion. It may not be reproduced without authorization, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observer.com WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-