I've just read this Reuters article: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-taiwan-anniversary-president/taiwan-president-pledges-to-defend-freedoms-despite-china-pressure-idUKKBN1CF07X?il=0
which mentions of President Tsai Ing-wen:
China suspecting she wants to push for the island’s formal independence
The wording struck me as odd here. I'm aware of the general history around the Chinese Civil War, with the Nationalists retreating to Formosa. And I'm aware of the switch of diplomatic recognition to the PRC in the '70s.
What I don't quite understand is the "independence" bit. I don't really understand what a "formal indepencence push" by the ROC will achieve.
Presumably the ROC was considered independent and sovereign even during the war, and continued to be so up to the switch of diplomatic recognition. Did that "de-recognition" of status somehow "remove" the ROC's independence? Or is there some semantical error in this article/my brain? And that what Reuters really means is that the ROC is pushing for restoration of recognition as a sovereign state and formalising of foreign relations?
Or, even more out there, is the article talking about the ROC specifically formally declaring that the island of Taiwan is the "new" country and independence means formalising the pseudo-renunciation of claims to the mainland in 1991?
Put yet another way: What is the legal basis of the ROC's current status of independence and sovereignty (whatever that status may be), and what are so-called pro-independence politicians in the ROC looking to change in legal terms by a formal independence push?
(Btw, I used the ROC and PRC for simplicity's sake to represent the governments of the 2 different de facto states, and to try to avoid the "One China" confusion)
Edit: Formatting
The RoC's current status's legal basis is due to the fact that before 1949, they were the legitimate government of all of China. After 1949, the current communist government failed to wipe them out. They arn't a successor, or a break away, but the original government of China from 1917. In many way it's actually the Communist government that is (semi)illegitimate as they're a mostly successful uprising.
RoC "independence" is less about it becoming an independent government, and more it acknowledging both the current status quo (aka in reality there are two Chinas), and the fact that unless a miracle happens, they arn't going to be retaking the mainland anytime soon. Basically the move if successful, would have them give up any territorial claims from 1949, reenter the UN/have diplomatic relations, and both reduce the possibility of conflict with the PRC, and provide more open allies if said conflict does happen.
What stands against this is that the PRC considers the RoC to be a "bandit" kingdom/renegade province (as the RoC officially considers the PRC). The PRC has said repeatedly that they will invade Taiwan, regardless of the consequences if it looks like the island is straying towards full separation. The fact that one of the RoC's more powerful political parties KMT, is still pushing for reunification under the RoC government doesn't help.
Finally, as far as other countries are concerned, the PRC has be rather blunt with why the "One China" policy is in effect. It will NOT trade with any country that recognizes the RoC. As most of the world get a greater advantage in trade from having access to the PRC's industry, and that the RoC will still trade with them, the rest of the world backs the policy, while still "unofficially" staying connected with Taiwan.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/11/taiwan-independence-china-republic-huadu-taidu/ http://www.economist.com/node/224851 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538
While there are more, these three cover the basics, as well as going on past what the 20 year rule keeps me from talking about. As another fun activity if you have time, try looking up the Taiwan as the 51st state. It's an interesting idea that we can't talk about here until 2023.
The idea of "Taiwan Independence" actuall stemmed from when some Taiwanese people wanted to dump the ROC government and found a new nation. In that sense, "Taiwan independence" is correct usage.
What China has done, over the decades, is to deliberately equate Taiwan Independence with Two Chinas. Since Taiwan Independence is something that was also heavily bashed by the ruling authority in Taiwan, i.e. by the ROC government, it was easy for China to hitch a ride and make it appear that both sides of the strait agree on something.
This is the same tactic that is being used when talking about the One China Policy.
I don't think this is really a historic topic because it's a very recent and still current development.
Talking about the so-called formal independence is basically taking PRC's viewpoint, because, as you observed, the ROC is already a sovereign nation, and you have already fallen prey to PRC's political propaganda. Many ROC officials, especially those from a KMT background, also deliberately use this terminology because they want to vilify any attempt to establish a Two China framework.
"Formal independence" basically means that the ROC renounced all claim to the mainland territories, effectively nullifying the "one China" concept, because ROC does not claim itself to be "China" anymore. The word "formal" is required because in the specific case of the ROC, its claimed territories are written into the constitution, and to renounce those claims, the constitution must be amended.
When that happens, there will be no legal basis in the ROC to treat PRC as anything other than a foreign nation.
This is distinct from the idea of "Taiwan independence" where the ROC itself is to be dissolved and a new nation founded.