SA’s ejection of Taiwan’s office out of the capital in line with international law

EARLIER this month, on March 5, to be specific, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) officially updated its website, renaming the “Taipei Liaison Office” to the “Taipei Commercial Office”.

The significance of this move in light of bilateral relations between Pretoria and Beijing cannot be overemphasised. Taiwan, an autonomous part of China, cannot enjoy undue diplomatic standing in South Africa or anywhere in the global community. This is because Taiwan is an integral part of China, and not a “country”.

When the founding father of democratic South Africa, Nelson Mandela, came to acknowledge this factor, he instituted the One-China Principle. This led to the designation of Taiwan’s mission to South Africa merely as a “liaison office”. In a belated move, the government only last year ordered Taipei’s “liaison office” to move outside of the capital city, Pretoria.

Only embassies and high commissions are accommodated in the host country’s capital. Taiwan is neither. Hence, South Africa’s move to order Taiwan’s relocation from Pretoria to Johannesburg, South Africa’s economic hub. The move is in line with Dirco`s appropriate designation of Taipei’s Liaison Office to the “Taipei Commercial Office”. It reflects the firm resolve of the South African government in dealing with the appropriate status of Taiwan in the country. The relocation is expected to be completed on schedule by March 31.

For many years now, China has been pushing back against attempts by separatists in and outside of Taiwan to break away from mainland China. But according to international law, Taiwan cannot be separated from China.

For the uninitiated, on October 25, 1971, the United Nations adopted resolution 2758 after it was passed with a two-thirds vote. The resolution stated in black and white that the world body resolved to recognise the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China to the UN”.

Since then, resolution 2758 has existed as a guiding light to the reality that “there is but one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. The government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China,” the resolution stated.

South Africa’s foreign policy since the dawn of democracy has been premised on respect for the rule of international law, and a peaceful coexistence within the framework of the UN Charter. The correct designation of Taipei Commercial Office is in line with the dictates of international law, as encapsulated in UN Resolution 2758.

South Africa has long been known for its independent diplomatic policies, maintaining a strong and autonomous presence in international relations. In recent times, South Africa has demonstrated the importance of fairness and impartiality on critical global matters.

The Israeli-Palestinian example comes to mind. So does the Ukraine conflict. The moves have won South Africa many admirers around the world who saw Pretoria as truly unafraid and not intimidated by external pressures, showing that sovereignty is sacrosanct.

Taiwan persistently attempted to delay the relocation while using media narratives sometimes to escalate tensions. It can be construed that Taiwan is attempting to exploit South Africa’s goodwill as a bargaining tool for its own interests, in a way showing a degree of blatant disrespect for South Africa’s sovereignty.

South Africa has international law on its side, backing its legitimate action on Taiwan. After all, China has been South Africa’s biggest trading partner for the past 15 years. The two nations are also close allies in BRICS. Chinese President Xi Jinping has undertaken four state visits to the country, the last being in August 2023 during the BRICS Summit. Last year, President Cyril Ramaphosa reciprocated, showing just how close the bilateral ties between the two allies are flourishing.

* Abbey Makoe is Founder and Editor-in-Chief: Global South Media Network.

** The views expressed here do reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.