In response to intense criticism from the Bush administration, the government has modified the two topics of the March 20 referendum, focusing on the desirability of acquiring anti-missile weapons and pursuing negotiations with China.
While somewhat mollified by the "flexibility" in the new language, a senior Bush administration official is wary that President Chen Shui-bian (
Such views, however, show that the Bush team is ill-informed on Taiwan's politics and is not sufficiently attuned to the country's precarious situation, facing not only China's growing threats of military aggression but also seditious forces closer to home. These forces comprise the pro-China alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP), the pro-capitulation media and some influential businessmen with heavy investment in China.
The proposed referendum is not just a symbolic opinion poll that will produce no visible effect on public policy. At this juncture in Taiwan's history the referendum is indispensable if the nation is to maintain the status quo, that is, its de facto independent status, free of Chinese control.
The KMT-PFP candidates never gracefully accepted defeat in the presidential election of 2000. The alliance has obstructed virtually every legislative proposal the DPP government has made. The people are fed up with unending partisan squabbles and government paralysis.
The Referendum Law (公民投票法) enables the electorate to break the stalemate in the Legislative Yuan on vital issues. It also functions as an insurance policy to protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Once this historic referendum takes place, the law can be modified so that no change in the status quo can ever be implemented without the assent of the majority of the citizenry, regardless of which political party is in power.
While the military balance is steadily and rapidly shifting in favor of China, many people in Taiwan, including government officials, academics, the media and the general public seem oblivious to the impending danger. The referendum is a wake-up call to make people realize the need to bolster national security and prepare people psychologically for the potential use of force or other coercive measures by the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Referendums provide the mechanism for the people to directly express their choice on important issues. It can deepen democracy by addressing deficiencies in the legislative and executive structures. If used judiciously and preceded by informed debate, referendums can also serve to forge a national consensus and consolidate the national will on such vital issues as the choice between freedom and servitude.
The March referendum may also call the attention of the international community to China's expansionism and its ambition to annex Taiwan by whatever means necessary. It is hoped that all peace-loving democracies will urge China to renounce the use of force against Taiwan and to respect the right of its 23 million people to determine their own future without outside interference, a right enshrined in the UN Charter.
China has long insisted that any dialogue with Taiwan must be preceded by acceptance of its claim that Taiwan is part of it. The March referendum can highlight the fact that it is this unreasonable precondition which prevents any substantive negotiations from taking place.
Bush administration spokesmen have advised Taipei that a referendum serves little useful purpose, that dialogue is a better approach. Such remarks show the Bush team is either confused or ill-informed. Surely the US government is not suggesting that Taiwan should unilaterally alter the status quo by surrendering its sovereignty to the Chinese? If the Bush administration is so keen on dialogue, it should tell China to drop its preconditions.
The US should refrain from interfering in Taiwan's domestic politics and refrain from micro-management of the referendum's wording. A critical stance toward Chen and the referendum would be counterproductive, since a KMT-PFP victory in March could well result in a drastic disruption of the status quo, such as unilateral surrender within a couple of years. Remember KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) proud declaration during his visit to Washington: "Thank God I am 100-percent, pure Chinese."
If the Bush administration is genuinely concerned about PLA adventurism in reaction to either the referendum or the March election outcome, it should build up a robust deterrence posture in the vicinity of the Taiwan Strait, as mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act and recommended by the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review which was published shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.
Certainly the war against terror is important. But Washington may imperil its significant strategic interests in East Asia by failing to act in time.
Li Thian-hok is a commentator based in Pennsylvania.
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