Reports that the US is opposing any form of Taiwanese referendum has caused the referendum debate to heat up once again. It is, however, quite surprising that the opposition and government have taken a common stance on opposing US interference in domestic politics.
What I find even more surprising is that it actually has been possible to create a debate about the US opposing any form of referendum in this country, since anyone with a little political sense knows that even if the US opposes a referendum on Taiwan's independence, it wouldn't use such strong language. The reasons why this debate has been heating up at this particular juncture are therefore questionable, for the following reasons.
First, the US has agreed to cooperate diplomatically with China in return for its help in dealing with North Korea. With Chinese demanding that the US clarify its stance on the Taiwan issue, the US leak to the press could be seen as a favor to the Chinese. Even though the leaked information may not coincide with the US position, it has fulfilled the US promise to China to make an "atypical" declaration of its position.
Second, the Kao Ming-chien (高明見) incident has weakened the position of the blue camp. It therefore leaked information that the referendum issue has become more serious, thus highlighting the dangers of the green camp playing with the independence issue in an attempt at saving the situation for the blue camp and unification.
Third, a legislative delegation is currently visiting the US. By the timely release of information that China has put a "red alert" label on a Taiwanese referen-dum, the US, on the surface of things, is simply forwarding the Chinese point of view. In fact, however, Taiwan has achieved longterm peace and stability by accepting US protection, and so long as Taiwan complies by paying its "protection fee," the US will not sit idly by.
This is why the heat has been turned up on the referendum debate at this moment. Add to this that the government cannot avoid holding a referendum next year, and it makes one wonder whether the US is playing its old game of using China to scare Taiwan into paying its fees a bit more willingly by threatening it with opposition to a referendum.
Leaving any conjecture about political plots to one side, my understanding is that the US is very firm in its position that any decision on the final status of Taiwan must have the unequivocal support of the Taiwanese people.
Taiwan is a sovereign entity, with its own people, government, land and sovereign wishes, and it of course has both the ability and the right to decide its own affairs through a vote. That China does not recognize this is another matter. The US is a nation that emphasizes the protection of democracy and freedom and it won't go so far as to openly interfere with or oppose the ability or rights of a sovereign Taiwan to vote to decide its own affairs.
To stress the "referendum spirit" in Taiwan's current political situation is recognition of the fact that the "Taiwan first" concept and the idea that residents should decide their own future have become the mainstream of public opinion. Given the strong Chinese pressure and the dispute over independence, we must actively search for a solution.
So, from a pragmatic point of view, how do we go about letting 23 million Taiwanese decide the future direction of this country? If we really want to realize this idea, we must pass the proposed referendum law (
Trong Chai is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS