Why are the United States government as well as many others supporting Taiwanese sovereignty despite their own anti secession laws?

Question

The People's Republic of China, according to many reports, is considering invading Taiwan. There is a law on the books that says if Taiwan does not bend diplomatically they will try to make it part of China by force.

Why is the United States coming out in support of Taiwan given its own laws would stop a state, say Texas (the state that has the most talk of independence and was once even its own country), from declaring independence? The fact that the United States is supporting a country which could be argued to have seceded while the US explicitly does not allow its own states to become its own countries seems hypocritical. And also though I focus on the USA here, this question is not specifically about the USA. It is also about all countries with anti secession laws that are supporting Taiwan but focused on the United States.

I'm not privy on the details. But I do know China and Taiwan are in a tough relationship. This question is not designed to criticize any country's positions. It's just for curiosity. To be clear I personally support Taiwan's right to choose on its relationship with mainland China. But, I'm pointing out something that others may see.

Answer 1

I'm from Taiwan, so I'll answer with some local perspective.

There is a law on the books that says if Taiwan does not bend diplomatically they will try to make it part of China by force.

The first thing we need to recognize here is that just because China passes a law that says Taiwan is part of its territory does not automatically make it a reality. Just as if Russia passes a law that says Ukraine is part of its territory does not make it reality either.

The truth is that national borders and sovereignty have to be drawn by treaties and so far no such treaty exists to formally establish the border or relationship between China and Taiwan. We're essentially living in a legal limbo.

What I can tell you is that Taiwan is currently a de facto independent, sovereign, and democratic country with 23 million people living on the island. It is a country with its own autonomy and agency, and that agency should not be taken out of the conversation. Taiwan is not a pawn, but a player that should have a voice at the table.

Why is the United States coming out in support of Taiwan given its own laws would stop a state... The fact that the United States is supporting a country which could be argued to have seceded while the US explicitly does not allow its own states to become its own countries seems hypocritical.

Following on from the previous section, national borders and sovereignty have to be drawn by treaties. This is where the comparison between Texas and Taiwan falls apart.

The Texas constitution (Article 1) explicitly says it is part of the Union and - while independent under the federalism framework - subject to the US Constitution. The relationship here is clearly established. Whereas Taiwan's constitution does not mention any such relationship at all, in fact, when you read the text of the Chinese and Taiwanese constitutions, it would seem as though they live in different realities (because they kind of are).

Another thing I need to correct is that the United States does not formally "support" Taiwan. It simply remains "strategically ambiguous" towards the island, meaning that it will do something if China attacks Taiwan but they don't say what exactly it is that they will do. This is done on purpose to avoid diplomatic miscalculation. So even though there is a lot of posturing going on, we should keep in mind that the US does not have a legal obligation to defend Taiwan the same way they are obligated to defend, say, Japan or NATO countries.

In conclusion, given its legally ambiguous nature. The US does not formally support Taiwan, but even if it does it would not be illegal. On the other hand, Texas law has subjected itself to the US Constitution so there is a legal basis to restrict Texas' means of succession.

TLDR: Taiwan is not Texas. The US does not formally support Taiwan.

Answer 2

a country which could be argued to have seceded

Secession means that a territory is leaving a nation.

That's not quite what happened in this case. To briefly recap history, 1911 saw the creation of the "Republic of China". In 1927, the Chinese Communist Party rose in rebellion. When Japan invaded China in 1937, the civil war was put on hold to defend against the Japanese invasion. In 1945, Japan was defeated, and ceded Taiwan to China. In 1946, the Chinese Civil War resumed, and the "Republic of China" lost control of mainland China, retreating to Taiwan. In 1949, the CCP proclaimed the "People's Republic of China". In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the "People's Republic of China" as the "only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations".

That is, the Japanese ceded Taiwan to a nation embroiled in a civil war that ended with one faction in control of mainland China, and one in control of Taiwan. Being recognized as the "only lawful representative of China", the faction in control of mainland China argues that Taiwan is part of China, and what they do to Taiwan is therefore an internal matter, while the faction who is in control of Taiwan argues that their nationhood has not ended simply because they lost control over most (but not quite all) their territory.

And that's how other nations can support Taiwan's independence without approving of secession. They simply ask:

How can Taiwan secede from the People's Republic of China, when the People's Republic of China never controlled it in the first place?

Answer 3

The key subtlety here is that Taiwan has not declared itself formally independent from China. The PRC in fact threatens to surely invade if Taiwan takes that formal step.

Countries supporting the broad autonomy of regions of another is more widespread than you think. A recent example were France and Germany supporting the autonomy (but not outright independence) of Luhansk and Donetsk under the Minsk agreements. The whole Bosnia affair was basically resolved by the three ethnic regions each having broad autonomy etc. I'm not sure what the army situation is like in Bosnia nowadays, but for Luhansk and Donetsk the Minsk agreements basically recognized the right of self-defence forces for these regions.

The US basically (albeit less clearly) claims that the people of Taiwan have the right to democracy and some level of self-government. It does support Taiwan in this regard, which stops short of formal recognition as an independent country... although the way Taiwan is represented abroad, ignoring the name games, is much closer to how formally independent countries are represented.

---

For what's worth it (since there are probably numerous such statements over the years from different US administrations, each with its own nuance); Wikipedia quotes this as indicative of the US ambiguity:

United States policy has remained ambiguous. In the House International Relations Committee on 21 April 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James A. Kelly, was asked by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) whether the United States government's commitment to Taiwan's democracy conflicted with the so-called One-China policy. He stated "In my testimony, I made the point "our One China," and I didn't really define it, and I'm not sure I very easily could define it. I can tell you what it is not. It is not the One-China policy or the One-China principle that Beijing suggests, and it may not be the definition that some would have in Taiwan. But it does convey a meaning of solidarity of a kind among the people on both sides of the straits that has been our policy for a very long time."

There is one 2007 Congressional Research Service document (also quoted therein) that states/summarizes that "U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan" but also that "U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country", essentially the conclusion being that "U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled".

That kind of language definitely leaves open the possibility that the US could recognize Taiwan as independent from the PRC at some point, i.e. the US position is beyond a mere call for autonomy.

It's also (perhaps) worth noting in this regard that even more ambiguous statements ... of ambiguity such as the famous UNSC resolution 1244, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) but without explicitly committing to whether Kosovo was or wasn't part of that guarantee, while speaking of a need for a "final settlement" for the latter territory have led to Kosovo's independence being fairly broadly recognized. (Kosovo is recognized as independent by about half the UN countries, mostly Western ones, but not by China and Russia, and probably most developing countries fall in the latter category [of non-recognition] as well.) In their advisor opinion, the majority of the ICJ judges have explicitly relied on the ambiguity of UNSCR 1244 as not precluding Kosovo's independence, in conjunction with the fact that FRY had not exercised "continuing sovereignty" over Kosovo (in Kosovo's case that was due to UN temporary administration being imposed over the territory following human rights violations by FRY forces.)

So the the lack of "continuing sovereignty" of the PRC over Taiwan (as in never exercised) can indeed be argued as highly relevant, although I'm not sure if the US (through its official representatives) has elaborated on this point in re Taiwan.

Answer 4

Simple. Taiwan is an ally of the US, and China is not. It's normal to support your allies and oppose your enemies. Now of course the US is not going to be so crass as to say that, so they'll say it's because Taiwan is democratic and China is not (see Democracy promotion by the United States and how US media produces headlines like this one). Note they aren't critical of US allies that aren't democratic, such as certain countries in the Middle East. In the same way, they don't think of Taiwan as "seceding" from China, they view it as a democratic country in need of protection from an autocratic neighbour.

Ultimately everyone is motivated by their own self-interest - this explains most of the contradictions one might see in the world.

Answer 5

Taiwan, more specifically TSMC, controls the world's production and supply of microprocessors. Not only the US and the West but also the entire world (e.g. PRC, Korea, Japan, etc) is dependent on Taiwan's microprocessor manufacturing foundries.

To put things in perspective, if PRC (China) takes over Taiwan, the entire Western bloc's military, space, and manufacturing industry will be at the mercy of the PRC. Therefore, it is in the strategic interest of the USA to guarantee the sovereignty of Taiwan.

Reference: Will China Invade Taiwan Next?

Answer 6

Contrary to the question's assumption, it is not illegal for Texas to secede from the United States. It is illegal for Texas to do so unilaterally.

For a complete analysis, see this PSE question; the tl;dr is that the Constitution requires any changes in statehood to occur with the consent of the the state in question (i.e. Texas) and Congress. For an example that never made it to the courts, see the Confederacy. The South seceded with the consent of the states involved, but did not wait for Congressional approval before shelling Fort Sumter. As such, their rebellion was illegal.

Of course, the US constitution need not (and does not) apply to Taiwan. But since the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928, the US has consistently stood for the position that any international territorial change must not occur by force, but instead requires the peaceful and coercion-free negotiation of all involved parties. (The US does not hold the same position regarding border-preserving regime change.) An invasion by China would not constitute peaceful and coercion-free negotiation.

Answer 7

In the European Union, in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and other democracies people lived in freedom for all their lives. Me being one of them.

To most of us who are interested in politics, I dare to say, Taiwan is a democracy where millions of human beings live in freedom. And the People's Republic of China on the other hand developed to an evil dictatorship.

Below all the reasoning about political or economical advantages there is something else much more important: many people really feel pity for the folks of Hong Kong who lost their freedom to the communists party despotism. I'd say, if the democratic countries didn't help people of Taiwan to escape that terrible fate, we'd feel terribly selfish, guilty and weak.

Answer 8

I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges. PRC and Taiwan situation is a result of US interference into Chinese civil war. Civil wars most often end with one side winning, or by officially separating into 2 independent entities via negotiations. Both entities do not recognize each other since they both claim the same territory. So nations that establish formal relations with one, automatically cannot do so with the other. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93China_Joint_Communiqu%C3%A9

Because Taiwan is separated by water from mainland China, blocking potential naval landing attempts practically maintains the unfinished war. One of the reasons this was done, was to give China's veto power in the UN to the tiny leftover refugee government of KMT that claimed to speak on behalf of all of China. If you are familiar with Korean War, international intervention in support of South Korea happened precisely because USSR was boycotting UN meetings because the decision to pick Taiwan as legal Chinese government was based on convenience, not common sense.

The US policy is not based on legality or ethics, it's simply there to harm Chinese development and provide justification to intrude into Chinese domestic issues. It's a tool basically. All the actions Russia gets vilified over, they learned from UK or US.