During the 1960s and the 1970s, China strongly promoted "one China," demanding that each country setting up diplomatic relations with China respect "one China" -- all in order for China to get its hands on Taiwan. This was the famous policy of political besiegement: as long as the world recognized only one China, Taiwan was already in the bag, and Beijing could take its time to finish implementing its plans.
This policy was actually quite a risky one. The chances of success were not that great because Taiwan was obviously not under the effective control of China. There were also many disputes over the historical origins of the "one China" claim. With the passage of time, the rationality of the Chinese claim that Taiwan was a Chinese province could only become weaker.
But Beijing's "one China" policy has still been successful. Why? Because Taiwan itself acquiesced to the policy. With such acquiescence, how could the "one China" policy not be successful? Some foreign friends and important politicians wanting to help Taiwan could only pull away, shaking their heads.
As a result, everyone advocating Taiwanese sovereignty and "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" received the death penalty or were forced into exile by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The Shanghai Communique appeared on Feb. 27, 1972. The future of Taiwan was thus forfeited by the KMT's bowing to China.
If the KMT government had been rooted in Taiwan, shown concern for the local people and given up the thought of a "Greater China," Taiwan would have been able to immediately expose the hypocrisy of the "one China" policy and prevent it from spread-ing internationally. Taiwan would also have been certain to receive assistance from many international friends and would have gained early accession to the UN. Naturally, no Shanghai Communique would have appeared.
The communique's "one China" doctrine as expressed in the words "... all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China ..." is the result of the acquiescence to Chinese policy by the KMT government and the media controlled by it.
Unfortunately, history seems to be repeating itself. The leaders of the KMT and the pan-blue camp are incapable of learning from history. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government is trying to break the siege, pan-blue forces are once again acquiescing to China.
When China says that holding a referendum would be tantamount to provocation, the pan-blue camp and the China-friendly media echo that claim. When China says it will resort to force if provoked, the pan-blue candidates and media loudly agree, doing their best to frighten the people on China's behalf.
When the government wanted to send a delegation to explain the referendum to friendly countries, the China-friendly media rushed to report the matter and create tension between Taiwan and the US.
Can we blame this on the late US president Richard Nixon's communique? At the time, he only used language common to Taipei and Beijing -- "one China." Following the same reasoning, we cannot blame officials in the administration of US President George W. Bush for their doubts. When China says that Taiwan is guilty of provocation, the opposition parties say Taiwan is guilty of provocation, while the pan-blue camp's presidential and vice presidential candidates shout even more loudly that the government must stop its provocation.
Under the circumstances, what can the US, under pressure from China, be expected to do?
If the people of Taiwan are disappointed over US statements regarding a referendum, they shouldn't blame the US, but rather the anti-Taiwanese groups that are feeding the Americans misinformation through media and their own statements.
Thirty years ago, a group from the pan-blue camp followed Bei-jing's "one China" doctrine, which led to the Shanghai Communique. Today, the same pan-blue organization is once again dancing to China's tune, this time saying "referendum means provocation."
The referendum is the only way remaining for the nation to free itself from the shackles and fetters of Beijing's "one China" policy. If Taiwan bends to China's pressure, we will never be able to hold a referendum. "Referendum means provocation" will become the international consensus. China will use this to stifle Taiwan and then use economic means to swallow us.
Then, any talk of some "Repub-lic of China" or being "sovereign and independent" will be nothing but mad ravings. Regardless of how wealthy you are, Taiwan will only be a fat sacrificial pig waiting to be slaughtered by Beijing.
Help yourself and others will help you. Let us tell the world, loudly, that missiles are the real provocation, and holding a referendum to protest these missiles is a peaceful undertaking; that it is China that wants to change the status quo and that holding a referendum is a protest against China's changing the status quo.
Let's tell China no and let's say no to pan-blue defeatism. This is the only way that this country will have a future and the people will enjoy wealth and dignity.
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy advisor to the president.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS