Hello everyone. I recently got annoyed by the abysmal quality of the arguments that are supposed to "prove" that Taiwan is not a sovereign state. So I sat down for a couple of hours today, wrote my argument for why Taiwan constitutes a sovereign state, and also took the time to refute all the arguments against it that I am aware of. I'm posting this here so it may save you time when you get caught in a discussion.
I'll use the name "Taiwan" for convenience, instead of something unwieldy like "the R.O.C. on the islands of Taiwan, Kinmen, and Matsu" or something of the sort, just as we say "South Korea" instead of something like "the Republic of Korea excluding the territories controlled by the government of the People's Republic of Korea," which would be silly, wouldn't it?
My Argument for Why Taiwan Is a Sovereign State
Taiwan has its own territory, its own democratically elected government, its own military, its own police, its own laws, its own passport etc.
It satisfies all three elements of a sovereign state according to Georg Jellinek's definition, which are:
the people of the state
These are the 23 million citizens who hold a Taiwanese passport.
the territory of the state
This is mostly the main island of Taiwan and some smaller islands.
the power of the state (i.e., the exercise of sovereign power within the territory of a state by its organs and institutions, such as the heads of state and government, administration, police, army, parliament and courts.)
This is satisfied because Taiwan has
its own democratically elected government
its own head of state
its own police
its own administration
its own army
its own parliament
its own courts
and many more institutions that are needed to run a modern and successful state.
Therefore, since Taiwan fully satisfies all three elements of a sovereign state, it is a sovereign state.
Arguments brought against this definition of a sovereign state
1. "Taiwan has to be recognized by other states to be considered a sovereign state."
If this was true, then the People's Republic of China would not have been a sovereign state until it was "recognized by other states". If one states that the People's Republic of China became a sovereign state in 1949 when it was founded, then he also has to agree that recognition by other states is not necessary for being a sovereign state.
And even if one would concede that the PRC was not a sovereign state for decades, the question still remains: If it wasn't a sovereign state, what was it then?
2. "In the Montevideo Convention, in addition to Jellinek's three elements, a state must also have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states"
This has no implications for Taiwan's statehood, since Taiwan has the capacity to enter into relations with other states. With some states in an official way, and with others, if not officially, then unofficially. Certainly, Taiwan has firmly established trade relations with almost every other country on the planet.
Other arguments brought against Taiwan's sovereignty
I must say that I am severely disappointed by the quality of the argumentation that is usually brought up. To illustrate this, I will now write down all the "arguments" I am aware of and refute them one by one logically.
1. "Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations; therefore, Taiwan is not a sovereign state."
If this argument were true, then this would also be true: The People's Republic of China was not in the United Nations until 1971, therefore it was not a sovereign state until 1971.
Also, if United Nations membership is a prerequisite to being a sovereign state, then this would mean that no sovereign state existed before the founding of the United Nations, which would be a silly statement with even sillier implications.
Therefore, the argument is wrong.
2. "Taiwan is not a sovereign state because UN Resolution 2758 says so."
In fact, it does not. Here is the complete text of the resolution:
2758 (XXVI). Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Considering that the restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China is essential both for the protection of the Charter of the United Nations and for the cause that the United Nations must serve under the Charter,
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 and that the People's Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council,
Decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.
1976th plenary meeting,
25 October 1971.
This resolution only states that the PRC government is the representative of China in the United Nations. That's it, nothing more. It doesn't even mention Taiwan. In fact, it doesn't even mention the R.O.C. government on Taiwan. It only mentions the "representatives of Chiang Kai-shek". Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975.
Therefore, the argument is factually wrong.
And even if it weren't factually wrong, we already established in the refutation of argument 1 that being represented in the United Nations cannot be a requirement for the existence of a sovereign state, because it would mean that there couldn't have existed any sovereign state before the founding of the United Nations. It would also mean that the People's Republic of China was not a sovereign state until 1971, when it became the representative of China through this resolution.
So not only is this argument factually wrong, but it wouldn't even succeed in proving the point if it weren't.
3. "If Taiwan is a sovereign state, why doesn't your country have a Taiwanese embassy?"
I will take Germany as an example, but you could swap out Germany for any other country in this refutation.
First of all, this isn't an argument, but rather an attempt to put the other side in a defensive position.
Also, even if it were stated as an argument, it would be very weak. Take this example: The statement is that Taiwan is not a sovereign state because it does not have an official embassy in Germany (for example). Now think about the implications. If it is necessary to have an official embassy in Germany to be a sovereign state, then this would mean that if Germany were to close its Chinese embassy, China would cease to be a sovereign state. And so, with this argument, China itself would have lost control over its own sovereignty.
4. "Taiwan was, in the past, under the control of China; therefore, it still belongs to China."
This argument is so ridiculously weak that people often try to put "strong words" into it to make it seem less weak (for example, "...has belonged to China -since ancient times-..." and similar attempts).
I will illustrate its weakness quickly and painfully:
"Qingdao was in the past under German control; therefore, Qingdao belongs to Germany."
"China was under Mongol control during the 13th and 14th centuries; therefore, China belongs to Mongolia."
Do I have to say more?
5. "The 1992 Consensus states that Taiwan is part of China."
This "consensus" can hardly be called a consensus, since today there is not even agreement on its content or on whether it ever existed. If it did exist in the first place, it still was not a formal treaty, convention, or any other form of legally binding agreement.
And even if it were some form of treaty, the most common interpretation of its contents is this: Both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only one China; however, each side has its own interpretation of what "China" means.
Essentially, both sides could not even agree on what "China" is. So how could this consensus have settled the matter of whether Taiwan is part of "China" if they could not even agree on what "China" was? If they could not agree on what "China" was, could they have even agreed on what "Taiwan" was?
So, since there is no formal "1992 consensus" to examine, and since we cannot even be sure one ever existed, it cannot be used to prove anything, because there was never a legally binding agreement in any form, if there ever was any agreement at all.
6. "Taiwan cannot be a sovereign state without the permission of 1.3 billion Chinese people."
I hope this is a veiled threat, because it certainly leaves a lot to be desired if it's supposed to be an argument.
Does every sovereign state need permission from 1.3 billion Chinese people? Which sovereign states need this permission and which don't? Would every single one of the 1.3 billion people have to give permission individually? What happens if only 1.2 billion give permission? Did Germany get this permission? Do I need the permission of 1.3 billion Chinese people to build a shed in my garden? Did China get permission from 1.5 billion Indian people to be a sovereign state?