Some people here in Taiwan only have a halfbaked understanding of referendums. As soon as they hear the word referendum, they begin to fret as if they see great disaster coming. The holding of referendums is a fundamental right -- in the most symbolic sense, it shows that sovereignty rests with the people. It is also the method that best reflects the will of the people.
The unnecessary conflict about referendums in Taiwan is the result of politicians lacking an understanding of democracy and of being paranoid about China, as well as the deliberate distortions and manipulations by unificationist media.
The formerly socialist countries in eastern Europe left their one-party dictatorships behind them at about the same as Taiwan. However, these countries have used the referendum to show the identity and will of the people in serious, solemn and impartial ways, and they have been generally supported by other European societies.
In this country, however, we are hesitant, unable to make our minds up. We see ghosts everywhere and bring humiliation on ourselves.
The referendums held in eastern European nations over the past few years which have attracted the most international attention follow three models, all worthy reference points for Taiwan.
First, there are consultative referendums. Poland's communist government lost the public's trust as a result of the challenge posed by the Solidarity trade union when it won freedom of association in 1987. To solve the crisis brought on by the risk of its imminent collapse, the Communist Party proposed a package of political and economic reforms, to be decided by voters in a referendum, making Poland the first communist country to hold a referendum. This shows us that even though the Polish Communist Party had dictatorial powers, it still wanted to hear what the public thought and understand public opinion.
Second, there are "declarational" referendums. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav republics held referendums to decide the future of their nations. Ignoring the Kremlin's threats, the three Baltic states all held referendums around 1990. The Supreme Soviet in their respective parliaments then passed resolutions to declare independence. Without fearing the opposition of the federal government in Belgrade, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia, four republics in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, held refer-endums to declare the legality and legitimacy of their independence.
The eight central and eastern European nations about to join the EU next May are all holding referendums on joining. Handling the referendums with caution and solemnity, their people are making a historic choice, showing that they want to become integrated in European society.
Third, there are constitutional referendums. Following the peaceful transformation of the communist regimes in central Europe, almost every country created a new Constitution (apart from Hungary, which has made major changes to its Constitution from the communist era). Before officially promulgating and imple-menting their new constitutions, each country gave its people the chance to fully understand the contents and make suggestions. They then held referendums before their parliaments approved the new constitutions.
Examples set by others might help us overcome our own short-comings. We can use the referendum experience of the eastern European countries to correct the erroneous opinions of those politicians opposed to holding referendums here.
First, the eastern European countries had no referendum laws when they held their referendums. Who could have guessed that the legal foundation for direct people's power, asking for the people's opinion on major national policies, already was as clear as could be?
Second, the pursuit of independence and sovereignty was the common will of a majority of the people in the Baltic states and the Yugoslav republics. In the same way, the wish of these states to become members of NATO and the EU was also a matter of national consensus. However, using referendums to demonstrate the people's will actually displays an even deeper symbolism and legitimacy.
There is a national consensus that Taiwan should join the World Health Organization. What is so wrong with holding a referendum on the issue?
Third, holding referendums is a people's basic right and it should be protected and respected. We never heard of any international opposition when these eastern European nations held their refer-endums. On the contrary, the international community encour-aged the people of these countries to vote.
For example, during a recent visit to Poland, US President George W. Bush called on the Polish people to support a referendum to enter the EU. The Warsaw media would never deli-berately leak information saying that the government in Washington is concerned over Poland holding a referendum.
Fourth, the Baltic states and the Yugoslav republics fearlessly and confidently held their refer-endums even before they had left the Soviet Union and the Yugoslav federation.
Taiwan and China are individually independent and have no jurisdiction over one another. It is difficult to understand why a minority of politicians here have to make up excuses for obstructing a referendum. Looking at it from this angle, the above arguments clearly explain why these politicians and media are suspicious of referendums.
People of Taiwan, you should have awoken by now. Don't let these people with ulterior motives trick you with their shocking and sensational statements.
Hung Mao-hsiung is an international relations research fellow at National Chengchi University and a member of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath