In response to US President George W. Bush's statement last week that he opposes comments or actions by President Chen Shui-bian (
Chen revealed his feelings toward Bush when a CNN correspondent asked if he "felt hurt, frustrated or even infringed by what Bush said." Without challenging Bush as to why he echoed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's (溫家寶) condemnation of Taiwan's attempts to "split with the mother land," Chen said he appreciated the Bush administration's earlier pledge to do "whatever it takes to defend Taiwan" and insisted that US-Taiwan relations were stable.
There is no doubt that the US and Taiwan share universal values of democracy, freedom and hu-man rights, but when it comes to the question of national interests, it is ironic that such an "alliance of values" can be distorted.
The notion that Chen's push for a "defensive referendum" to deter China's missile threat and military force constitutes an explicit action to change the status quo is nonsense.
What exactly is the status quo? Who is entitled to define the status quo? The status quo of the Strait is a world in which an authoritarian regime refuses to renounce the use of force against a democratic country. The status quo is a growing number of missiles deployed alongside China's southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The status quo is Bei-jing's relentless efforts to sabotage Taiwan's sovereignty by promoting its own ideas of "one China" and "one country, two systems."
China's unilateral actions to intimidate Taiwan are clearly changing the status quo and therefore coincide with the situation contained in Article 17 of the Referendum Law (公民投票法),which states that, "the president has the rights to hold a defensive referendum when the nation is faced with an external threat or a change to its sovereignty, through resolution by the Executive Yuan."
Washington may overlook the danger that Chen believes exists and portray Chen's concerns as nothing but election talk. Nevertheless, 23 million Taiwanese cannot wait until such a threat becomes a clear danger.
While the US employs double standards to brand Chen a provocative, reckless troublemaker, whom has been trying to rock the boat of Sino-US relations, it owes both a reason and an apology to Taiwan as to why its people are being deprived of the right to say no to China's saber rattling.
The "alliance of democratic values" between Taiwan and the US should be a respect of people's free will to make their own decisions. The "alliance of democratic values" should not kowtow to an authoritarian leader.
What Bush should really contemplate is the extent to which his administration can strike a balance between safeguarding the US' national interests and a fully fledged democratic Taiwan while engaging in building a constructive, candid and cooperative relations with China.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration made the wrong choice when it appeased Beijing at the expense of sacrificing its long-term commitment to Taiwan -- a country that has been steadfastly supporting a US-led campaign on global terrorism and post-Iraq humanitarian aid -- and a country that has been counting on US defense assistance to main-tain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
If international realism is indeed the only rationale behind such immoral treatment of a democratically-elected leader, then please, Mr. Bush, stop talking about how you plan to spread so-called American democracy around the world.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS