The US does not understand Taiwan's proposed referendum. It only worries that through the referendum, Taiwan will go out of control and change the "status quo" in cross-strait relations. Washington is concerned that this will affect regional security and its interests and perhaps involve it in a conflict with China.
Military confrontation with China is the last thing that the US wants.
Therefore, Washington opposes Taiwan's proposed defensive referendum -- which asks China to dismantle its missiles targeting the nation -- because by holding a referendum Taipei might unilaterally change the status quo.
A defensive referendum is provided for in the Referendum Law (
However, if our move to hold a referendum will drastically change the status quo, challenge or provoke China and create regional instability, the US' concern, lack of support or even opposition is understandable and acceptable from an ally.
But provided that this is neither what the referendum is meant to be nor what its outcome will be, then the dissent expressed by our ally may show its misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, of us.
This lack of understanding may partly be our fault.
Indeed, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has not clarified the content and specific wording of the referendum. He has only pointed out two issues: one, China should dismantle the nearly 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan; and two, China should give up making military threats against Taiwan.
China, in view of these demands upon it, apparently suffered from a guilty conscience and reacted by complaining to the US.
Seeing the premise of the referendum, which involves changing the military situation across the Taiwan Strait, and the strong opposition of China, the US misunderstood Taiwan's position as one of intentionally provoking China, unilaterally changing the status quo and pursuing independence and a change to the country's name and flag.
In complaining to the US, Beijing admitted that cross-strait relations are not a domestic issue but instead an international problem.
Otherwise, it would not have had to complain to the US, Japan, the EU and ASEAN.
This unexpected consequence was not necessarily bad for Taiwan. We have finally let the world know that non-democratic China has never given up its attempts to annex democratic Taiwan. The US, Japan, the EU and the ASEAN countries have now seen and heard this. Their concern about the issue reflects the tensions between their practical diplomatic interests and their support for democratic ideals.
So that these countries do not misunderstand Taiwan and thereby make misjudgments in their policies, it is time for Chen to emphasize the second part of the concept of the referendum -- that is, the referendum is in its essence about peace. It is my understanding that Chen, together with the Presidential Office and National Security Council, have been working toward this.
When Chen saw that Article 17 of the Referendum Law entitled him to initiate a defensive referendum to consolidate the national will, he must have started thinking of ways to go about doing that.
Dismantling its missiles and giving up its military threats are passive measures that we hope China will adopt. But we have to develop positive policies to reach the goal of peace across the Strait.
Here are two ideas for the specific content of the referendum on peace:
One: For lasting peace across the Taiwan Strait, we demand that China dismantle its nearly 500 missiles that are aimed at Taiwan. Once China makes this show of goodwill, our government should actively carry out negotiations with Beijing on the issue of the three links in a peaceful, equal and dignified way.
Two: For lasting peace across the Taiwan Strait, we demand that China publicly renounce the use of military force against Taiwan. Once China makes this show of goodwill, our government should carry out negotiations with Beijing regarding cross-strait relations in a peaceful, equal and dignified way.
I would like to ask the people of Taiwan: Would you agree with the peace proposals in the referendum and trust the government to implement them? I would like to ask the leaders of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party: Do you still think such peace policies will endanger Taiwan?
And I would like to ask the US president and Japan's prime minister: Will you oppose such a proposal seeking cross-strait peace?
Michael Hsiao is executive director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS