In a letter to the editor, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO) in the Philippines responded to a statement by the Chinese Embassy in Manila titled “One China Principle Brooks No Challenges and Distortions,” published in The Philippine Star on October 22, 2024.
Sophia Chi–TECO’s spokesperson, emphasized Taiwan’s autonomy, highlighting that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never administered Taiwan, and underscored Taiwan’s democratic governance where it independently elects leaders and performs sovereign functions like issuing visas. Chi cited the process for overseas Filipino workers and students who apply for Taiwanese visas through TECO, showcasing Taiwan’s distinct governance framework separate from the PRC.
Chi also asserted that under the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan is committed to engaging with the PRC through dialogue rather than confrontation, aiming for parity and dignity in cross-strait relations. However, as an observer and enthusiast of international relations both in praxis and academically, I could argue that the TECO spokesperson appears to blur the lines between “sovereignty” and “governance,” perhaps subtly advancing notions of “Taiwan independence.”
Sovereignty vs. Autonomous Governance
No offense intended, but it seems that the argument presented by Chi is simply flawed in many respects. Indeed, despite exercising a high degree of autonomous governance, it is a fact that Taiwan is not widely recognized as a sovereign state. In contrast, the PRC is recognized by 178 sovereign states globally. Whereas, the ROC is recognized by only 13 countries to date and these are mostly small nations, many in Latin America and the Pacific. To note, in modern international relations, “sovereignty” depends heavily on the recognition by other sovereign states and admission to international organizations. Even the United States, do not recognize and don’t maintain official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, although they may have informal ties just like the Philippines. Without widespread international recognition, Taiwan’s claims to sovereignty lack global legal standing, limiting its status to a “de facto” not “de jure.”
Moreover, “autonomy” refers to the capacity of a region or entity to govern its internal affairs without interference, but it does not inherently equate to sovereignty, in the same manner that “governance” does not necessarily equate to sovereignty. In Taiwan’s case, governance includes democratic elections, issuing visas, and handling internal policies, which it has conducted autonomously since 1949. However, this autonomous governance does not inherently grant and recognize Taiwan as sovereign nor an independent state in the international community. This is precisely because sovereignty entails internationally recognized control over both internal and external affairs, especially in foreign policy and defense. Hence, Taiwan’s autonomy is “de facto,” meaning it exists in practice, but lacks “de jure” or legal recognition.
Conclusion
In essence, Taiwan’s situation is one of “de-facto autonomous governance” and not “de-jure.” Taiwan operates independently in governance, demonstrating significant autonomy; however, due to historical, diplomatic, and legal constraints, it lacks the international recognition that defines sovereignty in the modern state system.
Source: The Lobbyist
https://thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/article-details/prime%20insight/taiwans-dilemma-autonomy-in-action-sovereignty-in-question
