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
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
RSS