Just what is it about the proposed defensive referendum the US government does not understand? The press briefing for reporters by US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli reported in this newspaper yesterday, coming as it does after Washington envoy Chen Chien-jen's (
Let us take two basic premises on which both Taipei and Washington agree: The Bush administration is opposed to any referendum that would unilaterally change the status quo. It is not however opposed to the idea of referendums per se.
Add to this the premise that the administration of US President George W. Bush appears opposed to the referendum proposed by President Chen Shui-bian (
So far the Bush administration refuses to say. We glean from what various officials have said since the defensive referendum was announced that Washington sees a difference between referendums dealing with independence and unification, which it opposes, and referendums dealing with internal political matters and national security issues, which are apparently OK.
So can we assume that the defensive referendum is seen as being about independence or unification? Why on earth would that be? The question of whether Taiwanese like China's missiles pointed at them or not has nothing to do with unification or independence whatsoever. It is plainly a security issue.
And, let us be frank, it is not even a very serious security issue. Instead, "Should Taiwan have its own nuclear strike capability?" is a serious security issue, or perhaps a question about whether people are prepared to pay more tax to see the professionalization of the armed forces.
So why is the Bush administration so opposed to the planned referendum? We think that it should say. Not only that, but it should say so clearly and openly -- no secret notes from secret visitors to Taipei -- so that its reasons for opposing Taiwan's exercise of popular democracy might be judged against its zeal for spreading democracy elsewhere.
How can we take US reservations into account if we know not what they are? How can we judge how well-founded they may be?
How might they not be well-founded?
Well, Washington may simply be not well-informed. Since the world's media, profoundly ignorant of Taiwan's affairs as it usually is, mistakenly thinks that any referendum in Taiwan must be about independence, it would be no surprise to find that Washington bureaucrats are similarly mistaken. And we note that Ereli said that he thought Taipei's idea of what the referendum would be was in a state of flux. This is simply false.
The government's ideas on the referendum have been fixed since the first week of last month. So either Ereli was being duplicitous -- not wanting to acknowledge what the referendum was so he wouldn't have to answer the harder questions about it -- such as what was wrong with it -- or there is still a lack of understanding of this issue in Washington.
Or the Bush administration might be being deliberately misinformed by China and its allies -- the pan-blue camp here in Taiwan and the so called Red Team of pro-China foreign policy mavens in the US itself.
Or it is even possible that China has issued threats to Taiwan -- it is, after all, desperately important to Beijing that Taiwan's referendum not take place and there is no knowing how high the stakes have -- in private -- been raised. US coyness might be a way to avoid the appearance of having caved in to China.
So we need to know. Tell us what your reservations are. Let us see that they are well-founded. Until that happens it is hard to know what more can be expected of Taiwan.
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