China's forceful interference in Taiwan's 1996 and 2000 presidential elections caused a strong backlash from Taiwanese voters and had results opposite to what Beijing wished for. Many observers thought Beijing would have learned its lesson and stayed out of next year's election, simply cold-shouldering the event. This is not what is happening, however. Beijing is clearly meddling and trying to block President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) re-election bid.
Beijing has rashly decided that Chen's goal of holding referendums and creating a new constitution mean Taiwan's independence and splitting from China. Beijing has recently been hurling loud threats at Taiwan. Wang Daohan (汪道涵), chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, warned Taiwan that it has pushed the cross-strait situation "to the brink of danger." The director of the State Council's Taiwan Affairs Office said Taiwan will suffer a severe blow to the head, while the office's vice director, Wang Zaixi (王在希), said it may be difficult to avoid the use of armed force. Such language could be seen as a new version of the threats issued during the 1996 presidential election.
When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) visits the US this month, he will have orders to demand that the US take more forceful and effective action to block the Chen government's move towards Taiwan independence. He will give the US a stern warning that if the US cannot deliver, then China itself will have to act. Is Beijing really concerned that holding referendums and creating a new constitution will bring Taiwan independence? After all, Chen hasn't been re-elected yet, and no one knows if he will be able to propose a new constitution by 2006, or what such a constitution would include.
So why is Beijing in such a rush? Does it dislike Chen and therefore uses the referendum and new-constitution issues as tools to defeat his re-election bid? Beijing is not providing covert assistance, but is overtly helping the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP). Aren't they afraid of once again tasting the bitter fruits of meddling in Taiwan's internal politics?
How should Taiwan respond to Beijing's actions? First, we must innoculate ourselves against the international community (particularly the US). The referendum and new constitution are domestic issues in which we cannot tolerate Beijing's meddling.
The referendum and new-constitution issues differ from China's "separatism" and "Taiwan independence." Beijing cannot say that Chen's government is working towards Taiwan independence just because Taiwan wants to hold referendums and create a new constitution. After all, even opposition parties advocating "one China" and unification understand the direction of public opinion and agree on these two issues.
The Communist Party of China (CPC) doesn't understand democratic politics, and simply entertains the wishful thinking that Taiwan, like Hong Kong, will give in to Beijing's will.
We are telling Washington that it must not be threatened by Beijing. Under pressure from military hardliners, Wen must make his position clear to Washington. In a recent briefing to Washington-based Taiwanese journalists, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Randall Schriver said the US firmly opposes China's use of armed force to solve the conflict with Taiwan. US President George W. Bush and senior US government officials must reiterate this position.
More importantly, the US should take concrete action in support of such a policy. In other words, the US should send the US 7th Fleet to patrol the waters around Taiwan to let Beijing see that the US is no paper tiger, and that it has the determination and power to maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
Parris Chang 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