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.
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