Author: Dr. Wordman

Perhaps some Americans have heard about Taiwan as a hot topic today from the headlines of the mass media, but few know the history and real issues of Taiwan. In this article, the author shall give the readers an analysis of Taiwan’s past, present, and future.

The Taiwan issue is a historical Chinese political problem created by the invasion of Imperialist Japan in China (Sino-Japanese War, 1893-1895). Japan defeated China and occupied Taiwan as a colony and its victory trophy. The Chinese people vowed to reunite Taiwan for however long it will take. After taking over Taiwan, Japan’s ambition of conquering a weak China was boasted and thus continued its aggression towards China. The Chinese people rose and toppled the corrupt Qing Government, and it was led by Sun Yat Sen. This did not deter the Japanese ambition; Japan accelerated its all-out plan to conquer the entire China. Consequently, Japan forced China to give up the Korean Peninsula and some northwest Chinese provinces. The Japanese further aggressively created 满洲国 Manchuria as its controlling puppet state.

Japan, not satisfied with its ambition, secretly established a plan to conquer the entire China and then Southeast Asia and the whole of Asia. It was estimated that it could defeat China in six months with its superior military, making China surrender. Japan started the all-out war in 1931 in China, but Japan was wrong in its expectation, the Chinese people united and fought the Japanese army with everything they got to the death. The Chinese fought for 14 years, not only stopping the Japanese from conquering Asia but also destroying its Axis alliance’s plot to win WWII. Everyone remembers the atomic bomb; the truth is that Japan was exhausted by the Chinese army in its occupied territories. The atomic bomb might have shortened WWII by months or years, but Japan’s surrender was inevitable, like a tiger being choked out of breath by a dragon.

The ending of WWII with Japan’s unconditional surrender to the U.S., U.K., China, and the Soviet Union resulted in returning Taiwan to China, which did give China and Taiwan a brief reunion while China was governed under the Republic of China’s Kuomintang (KMT) party. Unfortunately, China after WWII was in disorder, with many warlords controlling many local parts. In addition, under the influence of the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rose and started a national revolution. CCP started from the grassroots with peasants’ support and eventually defeated the KMT government. KMT retreated to Taiwan. In 1949, the CCP established the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Thus, the Taiwan Strait was separated as two opposing political entities, each claiming to represent the entire China, each pursuing economic development but maintaining the position to eventually defeat the other.

Diplomatically, ROC was supported by the U.S. all along, and PRC was backed by the Soviet Union till the late 1950s. China wanted more freedom to pursue its national building, while Soviet aid was tied with strings. In 1960, the Soviet Union suddenly pulled back all its aid personnel, thinking this punishment would keep China forever in an underdevelopment status, thus China broke its relationship with the Soviet struggling on its own in economic development. Taiwan, on the other hand, benefited from the Korean War as a supplier to the U.S. Its economy rapidly improved. Politically, however, its goal of taking back mainland China is weakening and is not encouraged by the U.S. for its interests. On October 25, 1971, the U.N. passed resolution 2758, recognizing the PRC as the sole representative of all of China. In the meantime, the U.S., seeing the handwriting on the wall, secretly adopted a strategy to woo China into its camp to rival the Soviet Union (Kissinger-Nixon China policy).

The UN resolution is a turning point, and China began to interact with the West, learning about industrialization and the world economy. While Taiwan is fast developing becoming a little dragon of the Asian four little dragons and more Americanized in social development, China was humble in learning, diligently working, and figuring out its development path using its painfully developed five-year economic development plan, making progress every five years. Throughout 1984 to 2007, China maintained a double-digit growth in GDP with three dips affected by the Tiananmen event and the world economic crisis. Thus, China’s economic development has surpassed Taiwan’s. Today, Taiwan’s trade has 40% dependency on the mainland, and China has become the world’s manufacturer and the number one trading partner of over 120 countries.

Projecting Taiwan’s future, many political commentators have taken different perspectives to analyze this issue with background logic in three themes: one is U.S.-China relations, the second is China’s resolve in taking Taiwan by force, and the third is the Taiwanese people’s democratic ideology. The author will predict Taiwan’s future after analyzing the above three perspectives in reverse order. Taiwan’s political ideology in democracy has only a few decades of history, far from being mature. Its current political government’s behavior and people’s reaction have shown that there is no strong or firm ideology except believing in the one person one vote concept (OPOV), but OPOV is only one of many tools of democracy. The meaning of majority rules over minority elections is to elect capable people; voters must be educated and learned about each election, and the art of compromising among the political parties is all absent in Taiwan’s democracy (Some even absent in the U.S. democracy).

The Taiwanese people had no clue about ideology until they learned the meaning of a political party, for example, the CCP has 96 million rigorous party members, 1/14 of the Chinese population is a CCP member. (excluding children, almost one in three or four families). Don’t they represent the people’s opinion? The party’s grassroots opinion gathering consensus upward through the party’s democratic system surely represents people’s wishes (the majority) for the good of the whole country. So the Hong Kong governing system works under CCP guidance, Macaw works as well, and so will the Taiwan system. Taiwan’s future will not depend on the Taiwanese people‘s ideology.

China will never use force to take over Taiwan; she will not rule it out, to prevent Taiwan or any foreign influences from doing stupid things such as trying to declare Taiwan a separate nation. Taiwan, as an economic entity, has been a model to China; now its GDP is ranked below nine provinces of China (2023 figure) only comparable with the city of Shanghai. Now, Taiwan is serving as a stimulating model for other provinces to catch up. So Taiwan can rest for sure it will not become Ukraine unless the people are stupid enough to keep a political leader behaving like a puppy dog to blindly follow the current US anti-China foreign policy.

Now let’s consider the U.S. -China relations, which appear to be complicated, especially when the U.S. political system elected a leader who is an authoritarian, spending no effort in healing party rivalry or developing a sensible foreign policy, being realistic, future-looking, and beneficial to the long-term interests of the American people. America’s bipartisan system has become a rival entity only interested in power. The Taiwan issue may or may not be resolved by the mood of the U.S.-China relations, but the trend is clear with China’s steady growth and increasing influence on the world stage. The reunion of the Taiwan Strait is getting closer, possibly by a public resolution by the Taiwan people, triggered by a domestic political event or an international event, or the Taiwan people waking up to reality and forgetting their false fear brainwashed by the past. This is the best outcome and most likely outcome!

The cooperation among nations regarding law enforcement and criminal justice dates back a century ago. In 1914, the idea of INTERPOL was born at the first International Criminal Police Congress, held in Monaco. The official International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC) was created in 1923, headquartered in Vienna, Austria, on the initiative of Dr Johannes Schober, president of the Vienna Police. In 1935, a police radio network was established but the mission of ICPC was interrupted from 1938-1945 by WW II. In 1946, Belgium led the effort to rebuild the organization, with Interpol as its telegraphic address and Paris its headquarters. In 1956, ICPC became International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO-Interpol or Interpol). In 1971, UN recognized Interpol as an international organization eventually accepted a liaison office and representative at the UN HQ in New York in 2004. Interpol is the second largest international organization next to the UN, supported by its member fees. Interpol progressed with time from radio network to X-400 electronic communication system (1990), then to a web-based I-24/7 system (2002) and established a cutting edge R&D, Interpol Global Complex for Innovation, in Singapore (2013). Interpol employed 756 staff representing 100 members as of 2013 with total of 190 members including China, Russia and the United States.

Notably, the first UN special notice was issued by Interpol in 2005 for individuals subject to UN sanction against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Besides the UN Special notice, Interpol classifies seven types of notices,




color coded,
Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Black, Orange, and Purple. Information disseminated via Interpol notices concerns individuals wanted for serious crimes, missing persons, unidentified bodies, possible threats, prison escapes and criminals’ modes of operation. The red notice seeks the location and arrest of a person wanted by a judicial jurisdiction or an international tribunal expecting his/her extradition. Interpol publishes notices either on its own initiative, or based on requests from its member states’ National Central Bureaus (NCBs) or authorized international entities such as the

United Nations

and the

International Criminal Court

. All notices are published on Interpol’s secure website and extracts of notices may also be published on Interpol’s public website if the requesting entity agrees. Interpol can only publish a notice that adheres to all the proper legal conditions under Interpol constitution. Notices can be issued in any of the four official languages of Interpol:

English

,

French

,

Spanish

, and

Arabic

. Chinese perhaps should be included as an official Interpol language since China has just issued a red notice for 100 criminals all involved in swindling money on a large scale. (Using Chinese language is not an honor but practicality.)




Most Interpol member countries would consider a red notice a valid request for provisional arrest, except those countries having additional internal legal requirements or a bilateral extradition treaty to be satisfied. The United States and Canada are such significant examples because most of the corrupt officials on the Chinese red notice are likely hiding there. The United States has extradition treaties with 109 countries or territories but not with China. So the effectiveness of this red notice does depend on whether the United States and Canada would cooperate or not cooperate with China regarding this global warrant issued by China. The US extradition treaty with another country is established based on each country’s internal law to safeguard the due judicial process rendered to a citizen or permanent resident. This protection is especially important if the individual fled the country was under religious or political reasoning. The extradition treaty would generally spell out such protection clauses.    




The USNCB focuses on fugitives, financial fraud, drug violations, terrorism and violent crimes. It can refuse to respond to any of the 200,000 annual inquiries from other nations and, as required by INTERPOL bylaws, it does not assist in the capture of suspects, particularly those coming into the U.S. from a country having no extradition treaty with the U.S. The 100 wanted corrupt Chinese officials including 23 women on the Chinese red notice have most probably escaped to the United States and Canada. Some have been in exile for as long as a decade, hence likely they have become permanent resident or even citizen in a foreign country. Therefore, some of these fugitives could hire lawyers to engage
complicated legal procedures to delay bringing them back to China for trial due to a lack of extradition treaties between China and their hiding countries. I might point out though the existing extradition treaty between Hong Kong and the U.S., perhaps, could be helpful before US and China sign an extradition treaty.  



Listing people, fled more than ten years ago, on the Interpol notice seems to illustrate Chinese government’s resolve in cracking down corruption and not as a political purge as some China critics claim. Sixty percent of the 100 wanted allegedly committed bribery and graft with evidence showing tens of million dollars involved. The red notice provided names, sex, nationality, crime committed and identification features including color of hair and eyes with a head and face photo. For example, on top of the list is Yang Xiuchu, while serving as deputy of construction bureau of Zhejiang province she had enriched herself through construction projects up to 253.2 million Yuan (>$40M). In 2003 after her brother was probed for corruption, she fled with daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter to the U.S. via Singapore. The red list will be updated every five years and will be effective permanently until the criminals are brought to justice. So the list definitely will have a positive effect on bringing criminals to justice and deterring corruptions in China.



Following the initial contact between two presidents, Xi and Obama,  the US and Chinese officials will meet in August to discuss the possibility of repatriating Chinese officials who fled to America with billions of dollars of allegedly stolen government assets, a State Department official said.

The absence of an extradition treaty between the US and China makes America an attractive destination for the fleeing Chinese, and a haven for the assets they allegedly stole. As a law abiding country, the U.S. must cooperate with China even at the loss of billions of dollars the corrupt officials had brought to the U.S. In the past, western governments had been reluctant to extradite suspects because of China’s murky judicial system. With the new leadership as seen in China’s 18
th
People’s Congress, judicial reform and anti-corruption were their serious reform agenda for saving the CCP party and the country. As more cases of trial are brought to light and more Chinese people are supporting the government’s reform, there is no reason for the U.S. not to cooperate with China on extradition.  



Canada, which also has no formal extradition treaty with China, has already cooperated with China in extraditing suspects wanted by Beijing. In 2011, Canada sent Lai Changxing, a businessman wanted for corruption and smuggling, back to China on the promise that he would not be executed. He was sentenced to life in prison. China has no reason not to agree with the U.S. on conditions of fair due process, humane treatment and constitutional legal sentences, after all, these corrupt officials are not international spies who often get tortured to extract information. As a law abiding country, we shouldn’t harbor criminals. Alternative to extradition, deportation for violating US immigration law or business ethics law can be applied as well. Neither country has publicly announced how much money has been smuggled from China into the U.S., but according to the Washington-based Global Financial Integrity group, $1.25 trillion of illicit cash might have left China from 2003 to 2012, a mind boggling figure and a significant portion landed in the U.S. and Canada.



We urge the U.S. to cooperate fully with China on the Interpol red notice and we also urge China to use some of the recovered money on education including offering international student scholarships under the name ‘XO grant’ signifying a Xi-Obama beneficial cooperation.