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.
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS