The intractable Taiwan problem

By Park Jung-won

The current heightened security tensions between the United States and China sparked by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan suggests that the Taiwan issue has entered a critical phase. One of the detonators in this regard is the new Taiwan Policy Act, a bipartisan bill submitted before the U.S. Congress in June.

Regardless of whether this bill eventually becomes law, it must emphasize the democratic government of Taiwan as the legitimate representative of the people of Taiwan. This signifies that the legislative branch of the U.S. government, if not the executive, sees Taiwan as having de facto statehood.

For decades, Beijing has sought to entice the people of Taiwan into accepting its rule through "reunification" into the Chinese Communist Party's sphere of influence. However, the word "reunification" itself is far from precise because the People's Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan.

The white paper published by China's State Council on Aug. 10, titled "The Taiwan Question and China's Reunification in the New Era," does not contain the conciliatory pledges mentioned previously in the 1993 and 2000 versions on the topic. For instance, it does not state Beijing's long-standing promise not to dispatch administrators and troops to Taiwan after "reunification."

The current conflict between the U.S. and China over the Taiwan issue shows the extent of the psychological nervousness and concern of President Xi Jinping's regime. This regime has through its actions informed Taiwan and the world that the phrase "one country, two systems" is mere camouflage for control by Beijing, as demonstrated by its brutal suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. Mentioning this formula repeatedly only reinforces the perception in Taiwanese minds that China will never keep its promises of autonomy.

President Xi will attempt to secure a third term at the 20th Communist Party Congress, expected to begin in late October. To do so, he must demonstrate the country's broad achievements under his rule to his fellow party members, who do not answer directly to the Chinese people but are highly sensitive to any signs of public unrest that could threaten the party's rule. But unfortunately, there are no great achievements to be presented; instead, there are growing indications that China's decades-long economic boom is coming to an end.

It is impossible to hide the huge debt crisis that is unfolding as real estate development companies default on obligations and banks fail to secure customer deposits amid plunging asset values. As a result, the regime urgently needs to divert the Chinese people's attention from these domestic policy failures. It conveniently does so by agitating nationalist sentiments toward the outside, as if all of China's problems were caused by a malicious U.S.-led bloc. The highly contentious Taiwan issue plays perfectly into this strategy.

However, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a blatant violation of international law. Taiwan is a substantive political entity distinct from Mainland China. This political and territorial entity is protected by the Taiwanese people's right to self-determination. Although the Taiwanese may generally have overlapping racial and linguistic features with the Chinese on the mainland, they have not lived through more than seven decades of rule under communism.

They are culturally different and, above all, pursue a politically liberal and democratic form of government. Even if Taiwan is not a state under the rubric of formally construed international law, an armed invasion of Taiwan would still be in violation of it. The use of force that infringes on the rights of the Taiwanese people is contrary to the principle that international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means.

Moreover, if Taiwan were to declare independence upon being invaded by force, it would become a state instantly from an international law perspective, because Taiwan has already satisfied the criteria for statehood (defined as territory, population, effective control and the capacity to conduct diplomatic relations). Taiwan has not declared itself to be a distinctly separate independent state "explicitly" yet due to divergent interpretations of the meaning of "One China," but it may still be considered a de facto state.

Taiwan maintains official diplomatic relations with 13 U.N. member states and the Holy See, and many others have maintained unofficial diplomatic ties with Taiwan through representative offices that function as de facto embassies and consulates. Taiwan is also a member of the World Trade Organization. In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, liberal democracies around the world, led by the U.S., are likely to be united in support of Taiwan, as has been the case with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

If an all-out military conflict over Taiwan between China and the U.S.-led liberal world becomes a reality, South Korea would be unavoidably dragged into the vortex and exposed to highly dangerous security threats. China would make every effort to bog down U.S. forces stationed in South Korea in order to prevent them from providing military aid to Taiwan.

In addition, North Korea should be expected to collaborate closely with China by making localized provocations against South Korea, in reaction to which the U.S. will have to provide support. It seems very likely that North Korea has already agreed to this kind of plan in exchange for China's covert economic assistance to the North.

Amid this gravely worrying situation in East Asia, the Yoon Suk-yeol government has offered a rather unrealistic deal to North Korea, grotesquely titled an "audacious initiative." His government suggested that it would provide a comprehensive aid package for the North's economic development and infrastructure investment if the North merely initiates a denuclearization process. Does Yoon sincerely believe that the North would accept this sort of offer? If he truly did, far from assessing the geopolitical situation accurately, he is now living in a dreamland.

Park Jung-won (park_jungwon@hotmail.com), Ph.D. in law from the London School of Economics (LSE), is a professor of international law at Dankook University.