On Friday, President Chen Shui-bian (
The first question asks voters -- if China does not withdraw the missiles aimed at Taiwan and does not renounce the use of force -- whether they would support the government in buying more anti-missile weapons to strengthen Taiwan's defense capabilities. The second question asks if voters agree that the government and China should begin negotiations to push for the establishment of a cross-strait framework for peace and stability.
As everyone can plainly see, these topics are not in the least bit provocative. All the talk about how a referendum would bring catastrophe is groundless.
In the past three years, China's increase in missile deployments targeting Taiwan has demonstrated an intention to unilaterally change the status quo in an undemocratic and violent manner.
Chen emphasized in his remarks on Friday that he is willing to do his best to maintain peace and security, and that the campaign for a referendum on March 20 is an effort to prevent China from using force and unilaterally changing the status quo.
Chen's remarks are supported by the referendum topics he announced. The purpose of choosing these topics is to reveal China's ambitions to change the status quo, as well as to make the world and people here understand that Taiwan's efforts to strengthen its defense capabilities are purely in response to Chinese threats.
Especially noteworthy is the fact that the "anti-missile weapons" are defensive in nature -- so there is no intention on the part of Taiwan to engage in an arms race with China. Despite Chinese threats, Taiwan continues to maintain goodwill. There is no intention to provoke China or make trouble.
The second topic answers the question left open by the first. With offensive counterattacks ruled out as an option in the face of Chinese threats, what are the peaceful means through which cross-strait issues can be resolved?
Chen is trying to answer this question by forging a popular consensus in support of peaceful cross-strait negotiations.
The referendum on March 20 is in no way intended to change the status quo. Instead, the goal is to safeguard the status quo through the most peaceful means. All the concerns that the US, Japan and Europe have had about a referendum changing the status quo were the result of deception by China. Taiwan's intention to uphold the status quo is consistent with the intentions of Taiwan's allies. From this standpoint, the international community now has even more reason to support Taiwanese people's right to exercise their fundamental civil rights through a referendum.
However, a word of caution is in order. While the majority of people here will support replacing antagonism with negotiations in dealing with China, it is critical that such negotiations be conducted on the basis of reciprocal respect for sovereignty, and under close monitoring by the international community. Without that, there would seem to be little reason to trust China.
The referendum topics are consistent with popular will in Taiwan. Surely, both questions will be answered in the affirmative on March 20 by the voters.
Under the circumstances, both the pan-green and pan-blue camps should offer their utmost support to forge a united front in safeguarding peace.
With China targeting Taiwan with close to 500 missiles -- not to mention countless other offensive weapons -- and also conducting a relentless unification campaign through economic pressure, we do not understand why anyone continues to say that China poses no immediate threat to Taiwan's peace and security.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
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
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,