A week ago, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proposed a referendum on Taiwan's sovereignty to be held on the same day as next year's presidential election. This has caused a sensation at home and abroad.
In response, James Moriarty, the senior director for Asian affairs at the US National Security Council, visited Taipei to express Washington's concern over the referendum issue. Richard Boucher, spokesman for the US Department of State, replaced the US' mild phrase about "not supporting" an independence referendum with a statement that the US would "be opposed to" such referendums. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
These reactions are the result of a presidential campaign, the confrontation between the green and blue camps and the distorted legislation process caused by the Referendum Law (
Following explanations by government officials over the last few days, Chen has guaranteed that the goal of a defensive referendum is to let the people express their wish to maintain the status quo, and that it does not constitute a change to his "five noes" promise. The current plans for a referendum are aimed at a vote opposing China's missile deployment and the "one country, two systems" model. This is further evidence that the defensive referendum is a harmless expression of public opinion. Originally seen as provocative, it no longer challenges the status quo, but now becomes a direct expression of public opinion that does not violate Taiwan's promises to the international community.
The opposition to any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, regardless of whether such a change would be the result of China's armed threats or Taiwan changing any of the symbols of sovereignty, represents the spirit of US cross-strait policy. "Not supporting" Taiwanese independence and "opposing" Chinese military action against Taiwan cannot be separated. In other words, the essence of US policy must be an unbiased "neither arms nor independence."
China has deployed 496 missiles across the Taiwan Strait and frequently sent its warships near our waters. China's threat to Taiwan far surpasses that of the former Soviet Union to the US when it deployed missiles in Cuba during the Cold War. Then US president John Kennedy did not hesitate to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war to make Moscow remove the missiles.
Threatened by China, Taiwan is justified in holding a defensive referendum to express the people's discontent.
What the US opposes is a referendum to change the status quo. The government has clarified that the defensive referendum will not touch upon the independence-unification issue and Chen's "five noes" policy. Rather, it will maintain the status quo. Since this is in line with the US' cross-strait policy, Washington should have no reason to oppose it. The US Congress has also expressed its respect for the Taiwanese people's decision regarding their future.
Moreover, having been oppressed by China for a long time, the Taiwanese people are entitled to decide their own future.
Speaking in terms of democracy, human rights and Asia-Pacific regional security, the US should support Taiwan's holding a harmless defensive referendum.
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