Amid international suspicion over the motive and timing of the March 20 referendum, President Chen Shui-bian (
For those who have questioned why Chen needs to pursue a defensive referendum regardless of the danger it might create, the portrayal of the president as an unpredictable and reckless politician is false. The idea is based on the assumption that the cross-strait relationship in the last four decades has rested upon ambiguities that have allowed both the PRC and Taiwan to interpret the same concept to their own individual satisfaction. Therefore, any unilateral attempt to break such an ambiguous definition of the cross-strait status quo would be considered rocking the boat.
Most people tend to overlook the fact that Taiwan's democracy is an irreversible trend and any attempts to appease Beijing should not be conducted at the cost of the nation's democratic consolidation. Taiwan has always been a valuable asset to the international community with its democracy, economic progress and intensive participation in the world affairs. Without touching upon the sensitive issues of independence or unification, Chen's suggested referendum aims to secure cross-strait peace by asking Beijing to reduce its military deployment and to restart negotiations on peace. Such an effort to institutionalize cross-strait dialogue should be supported by the world community.
Hence, the main international implication of the framework for cross-strait peace lies in its predictability, manageability and responsibility. To rebut the accusation that his referendum move and plan for a new constitution in 2006 may pave the way for a de jure independence, Chen has pledged that constitutional reform will be based on no change to Taiwan's status quo. Moreover, a framework for cross-strait interaction will enable both sides to engage in peaceful contacts in a more predictable and manageable way.
For example, Chen suggested the establishment of demilitarized zones including the removal of combat personnel, equipment and deployed missiles and the creation of a buffer zone to prevent military con-flicts. Those are constructive measures aimed at reducing miscalculations and misperceptions that might lead to military conflicts. Aren't these what the international community was anticipating? The proposal indeed displayed Chen's responsibility to handle cross-strait relations.
Most importantly, Taiwan will show self-restraint under such a framework. Since its aim is to peacefully deal with China without changing the status quo of Taiwan, the international community can monitor the process of cross-strait negotiation without worrying about any unexpected changes.
Referendums are a democratic tool. While some argue Taiwan is using referendums like a hammer to pound people, Chen's framework proposal demonstrates his determination to incorporate the referendum as a hammer to build a house -- a house where people from both sides of the Taiwan Strait can peacefully live next to each other and enjoy democratic progress and economic prosperity.
Whether or not Beijing will react to Taiwan's peace gesture in a positive way is unknown. Given how close the presidential race is, it would be natural for the Chinese leaders to ignore Chen's proposal. Bei-jing, however, will have to face the results of the referendum. If a majority of voters support the frame-work, both sides will have to shoulder the responsibility of international expectation for cross-strait peace.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers