There have been strong reactions to President Chen Shui-bian's (
The reason why the "one country on each side" statement makes sense is that it puts into words the reality of the current cross-strait situation. Who can deny the fact that on one side of the Taiwan Strait we have the Republic of China, while on the other side, there is the People's Republic of China? Without a doubt, Taiwan does not have the ability to deny the existence of the People's Republic of China. If Taiwan herself denies that there is "one country on each side," should the name "Republic of China" be altered to "A Province of China" or "A Region of China?" In a spirit of denouncing anything Chen says, some politicians complain loudly that "one country on each side" ignores the bigger picture. If the Taiwan where they make their living is not a country, then what is it, pray tell? If the opposition parties reject their own country, then they are loyal to China and not to the people of Taiwan.
As for the referendum issue, that does not pose a problem in democratic countries. Since Taiwan is a democracy, what is so wrong about letting the people decide the great question about the country's future in a referendum? This cannot be opposed simply because China opposes it. If it were, then what sovereignty and independence would there be to speak of? China's statement that "referendum implies war" makes even less sense than its statement in 2000 that "Taiwan independence [leadership] at the helm implies war," since a referendum is merely a means of making a decision, not the decision itself. Even if there were to be a referendum on the question of unification or independence, why start a war before the outcome has even been decided?
What China fears is not the reason for a referendum, but the democratic procedure of a referendum in itself. If Taiwan wants to decide its future in a referendum, then if Jiang Zemin (江澤民) wants to stay in power after the 16th National Congress, he can no longer continue to operate behind closed doors, but must let the whole party and the entire people of China decide the matter in a referendum. Is this something that Jiang and the party can tolerate? The opposition of some Taiwan politicians to a referendum assists China's dictatorship in its machinations, whereas, as an advertisement for democracy in Taiwan it could in fact be used to promote change in China.
So there are reasons behind China's strong opposition to President Chen and his statements. On the one hand, the fundamental conflict between the two countries' political systems necessitates China's opposition. On the other hand, China is facing the difficult situation of a leadership change at the 16th National Congress, and Jiang needs the support of the army to become a modern-day Yuan Shikai (
The American reaction is also understandable. From the release of the Defense Department's report Military Power of the People's Republic of China and the first annual report from the congressional US-China Security Review Commission, we can see that the Bush administration is adopting a more aggressive Taiwan policy. The US, however, has been concentrating its efforts on its anti-terrorism campaign since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and lately it has been concentrating on a possible attack on Iraq. It is considering a restructuring of the Middle East order that will bring a comprehensive solution to the Middle East's problems, and, of course, hopes to avoid instability in Asia.
The Americans are more surprised than displeased by the "one country on each side" statement, and this is due to a lack of coordination. Speaking of which, it would also be more to the point to say that it is China that has created problems for the US, rather than to blame it on Taiwan. The reason for this is that China used big money to buy diplomatic recognition from Nauru, forcing the nation to sever relations with Taiwan, thereby creating an awkward situation for Chen as he took over as chairman of the DPP. China then used this situation to aggravate the tense cross-strait situation in order to distract the US. Similarly concentrating on the Middle Eastern situation and, perhaps, reluctant to contemplate additional complications in Asia, some Western media organizations initially did not understand this. They did not denounce the "one country on each side" statement, but were concerned that the challenge it posed to China would provoke an unreasonable response and that the US would not have the time to attend to the situation.
This is why, before Taiwan provided an explanation, the US took the view that Chen's statement was a response to the domestic political situation in Taiwan, and not a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble, in the hope that they would be able to find a way for both sides to back down. Still a few days later, the US and Western media changed their tune and condemned China's threats of armed force and showed an understanding of Taiwan's actions to counter China. Unless the political power struggle in China dictates otherwise, this whole episode can therefore be considered to be over and done with.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS