In a recent interview, President of the Republic of China (Taiwan) Tsai Ing-wen stated that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to dominate the Western Pacific and even the world rather than for territorial integrity when it comes to the issue of Taiwan’s annexation. Tsai questioned why the CCP does not reclaim the territory occupied by Russia in the “Aigun Treaty” if their goal is truly about territorial integrity. She emphasized that the CCP’s aggression towards Taiwan is not related to territorial disputes but rather a desire to change the world order.
Tsai pointed out that the CCP’s intention to attack Taiwan is not dependent on any individual or political party’s actions, but rather stems from their ambition to alter the existing rules-based world order and establish dominance in the Western Pacific and internationally. The President’s remarks, initially aired in Taiwan, quickly gained global attention and were widely reported and discussed by various media outlets worldwide.
The unprecedented public acknowledgment by Tsai of the CCP’s motives in planning to invade Taiwan and the discussion of their betrayal of land to Russia have sparked significant reactions. Critically, this kind of frank discourse from a Taiwanese leader is rare and has strongly challenged the CCP’s narratives and actions.
Furthermore, Tsai’s reference to the “Aigun Treaty” of the Qing Dynasty, in which significant territories were ceded to Russia, highlights the CCP’s lack of genuine concern for territorial integrity. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs swiftly responded to Tsai’s statements, asserting that bilateral agreements have resolved past border issues between China and Russia, underscoring their commitment to mutual territorial concessions.
This history serves as a backdrop to Tsai’s argument that Taiwan’s status post-World War II is distinct from the CCP’s claims of sovereignty and reunification. International agreements following Japan’s defeat clearly indicate a connection between Taiwan and the Republic of China, casting doubts on the CCP’s assertions of ownership over the island.
The revelation of these historical facts and legal principles by Tsai Ing-wen and the ensuing public discourse shed light on the CCP’s deceptive “patriotic” rhetoric and their realpolitik motivations. It challenges the CCP’s narratives of “patriotism” as a facade to conceal their party interests at the expense of national interests.
The comparison of the confiscated territories under the “Aigun Treaty” with Taiwan’s landmass underscores the CCP’s opportunistic focus on Taiwan’s comparatively smaller territory rather than pressing claims against Russia. The critique put forth by various commentators raises questions about the CCP’s genuine intentions regarding territorial claims and their historical duplicity.
In conclusion, Tsai’s bold statements not only serve as a wake-up call regarding the CCP’s ulterior motives but also provide a platform for a broader understanding of Taiwan’s rightful place in international law and history. The dissemination of these historical truths and legal clarifications can effectively counter the CCP’s revisionist narratives and expose the fallacy of their “unification” agenda regarding Taiwan.