The Legislative Yuan has passed a Referendum Law (
Lin writes, "A defensive referendum is a strategic weapon of deterrence that absolutely must to be connected with the unification versus independence issue. Not connecting it this way would make it a bomb stripped of all explosives, a dud. It must not be rashly used, but it would be even more inappropriate to rashly strip it of all its explosive power."
From Lin to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Taiwan's defensive referendum is definitely not about using destruction to deter China; rather, its purpose is to follow Article 17 in the Referendum Law which states that "when the nation is exposed to an external threat which threatens a change in national sovereignty, the president may, following a resolution by the Cabinet, place matters of national security before the public for decision in a national referendum."
In other words, the purpose is to let the public express its refusal to accept changes to the country's current independence and sovereignty. Such an expression of public opinion is appropriate at a time when China is using force to threaten to change the status quo of Taiwan's national sovereignty. It would also be appropriate if China threatened to change the status quo of Taiwan's sovereignty at a future negotiation.
The problem today is the question of whether the current threat is an "external threat" which "threatens a change in national sovereignty." The answer is "without a doubt." The reason why Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
That one sentence divulges their true intentions. "Unity" means a change to Taiwan's current status as a sovereign country. "Will pay any price" is a serious threat. But Wen does not want war. I've said that neither Taiwan the the US nor China wants war, so how could there be a war? Lien's call on hundreds of thousands of mothers to write Chen to oppose war was just a repetition of the trick that he used during the 2000 presidential election to incite fear of war. He is trying to deceive both himself and others, and this attempt isn't even worth laughing at.
Wen's threats are obviously not aimed at Taiwan alone, but at the US too. He wants the US to help China threaten Taiwan, and so achieve his goal of changing Taiwan's current status as a sovereign country.
Will the US fall for China's tricks?
Of course not. The George W. Bush administration keeps clarifying its stance. It is clear and consistent, not in the least fuzzy. In particular, the White House official who wanted to remain anonymous during an interview with Hong Kong's Phoenix TV on Nov. 26 gave a thorough explanation of US policies under a barrage of journalists' questions. The core concept is that the US opposes any attempt by China or Taiwan to unilaterally change the status quo.
When journalists asked questions that compared "supporting Taiwan's democratic development" with "maintaining the status quo," the official unambiguously said that Taiwan's democratic mechanisms will continue to develop rapidly, that holding referendums is a legitimate way for democratic entities to implement democracy, and that there is no reason for anyone to assert that Taiwan does not have the right to a good, useful and modern constitution.
At the same time, he also unequivocally pointed out that over 80 percent of the people of Taiwan have said that they want to maintain the status quo, and said that he did not believe that democracy somehow would force Taiwan to change the status quo.
I think this White House official understands Taiwanese politics better than all the gentlemen in the pan-green and pan-blue camps, from Lin to Lien.
Since democracy will not force Taiwan to change the status quo, what force could force such a change? One such force is threats from China, external to Taiwan. Another such force is people in Taiwan not recognizing their own country's sovereignty, but instead recognizing the sovereignty of China over Taiwan. Once these two forces are joined together, the crucial moment when Taiwan will be forced to change its sovereignty will have arrived.
March 20 next year may be that crucial moment.
The defensive referendum will require that the Taiwanese people make an evaluation at that historical moment.
Either they will choose to identify with Taiwan and maintain Taiwan's current status as a sovereign and independent country, or they will choose to identify with China, leave Taiwan's sovereignty by the wayside and sign a comprehensive agreement with China to change Taiwan's status as a sovereign and independent country.
On March 20 next year, voters will therefore not merely elect a president, but also decide the direction of their country, the fate of Taiwan.
Ruan Ming is a visiting professor at Tamkang University and was a special assistant to Chinese Communist Party secretary-general Hu Yaobang (
Translated by Perry Svensson
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US