Advocating Taiwan independence and inciting confrontation have been described by Bi Haibo, minister counsellor and spokesman at the Chinese embassy in London, as a dangerous provocation and extremely irresponsible (Letters, January 19).
He also correctly recalls all the pre-1949 treaties and documents but misrepresents the current situation. Since 1949, when, as Haibo says, “Taiwan and the motherland have been in a state of temporary division due to well-known reasons”, the Taipei government has exercised independently and effectively all sovereign prerogatives of a fully functioning state.
True, it is formally recognised only by a handful of far-from-powerful states and its diplomatic relations are almost non-existent. Yet, it behaves — and for all practical purposes is treated — as a state. The US, for instance, maintains intense economic exchanges and a “robust unofficial relationship”. While it does not openly support Taiwan independence, it has recognised Taiwan’s right to self-determination and respect of its territorial integrity (see the US government’s Taiwan Policy Act 2022).
The creative ambiguity adopted by the US and by other states, as well as the generally low profile kept for decades by the government of Taiwan, have contributed to maintaining the status quo for 75 years. In the last couple of years, however, the threat of a military invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China has become increasingly palpable.
Legally, the argument that the PRC could restore its authority over the entire territory of China (including Taiwan) is untenable. Taiwan is fully entitled to expect its borders and political independence to be respected.
Far from restoring the territorial integrity of the “unitary” China, any military threat or action against Taiwan would be contrary to the prohibition of the threat or use of force to settle international disputes.
It would also trigger the right to use military force in individual and collective self-defence.
The fact that Taiwan is not a member of the UN is immaterial, for such rules apply also as a matter of customary international law.
The consequences of a conflict cannot be overestimated.
Indeed, all actors involved — including the PRC government — must refrain from any acts of provocation and confrontation.
The international legal order has already suffered far too many flagrant violations of its fundamental rules in the past few years.
Tarcisio Gazzini
Professor of International Law
University of Padua, Padua, Italy
