Many people were worried that the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally would worsen ethnic confrontation. However, the rally's mood is better described as having been joyful rather than hateful. But the rally can hardly be seen as one ethnic group's provocation of other groups. If there was any kind of threat, it was directed at the pan-blue camp by demonstrating the pan-green camp's ability to mobilize its supporters.
One group dedicated to the advancement of ethnic equality recognized the self-control demonstrated by both camps in the rally. Its spokesperson even called upon the two camps to co-host a rally next year. Unfortunately, neither camp has responded.
The rally was good for the pan-green's election campaign. Some people have questioned the pan-green's motive in organizing the rally. Their concerns are legitimate, and will make political parties act more prudently. A society needs people like them, who challenge political figures and political groups on behalf of society. After all, power is like a flood, and mismanagement of it will harm people.
But other than from a political perspective, how can we interpret the rally? Was it a result of mobilization? Was it a demonstration of hatred against China? Or a show of admiration for President Chen Shui-bian (
In view of the variety of participants and mood of the event, it does not seem to be support for a certain political party that pushed millions to take to the streets; neither was it hatred against China or other ethnic groups.
Although the event was aimed at China, the confidence and desire for self-determination shown in the rally were not manifestations of blind hostility toward China. Many people who took to the streets that day have family or friends working in China or own businesses connected to the Chinese economy. Even the stocks owned by some of the participants may depend quite heavily on the performance of the Chinese economy. However, their common sense told them that Taiwan's future is inseparable from China's development. Their wish to be treated with justice and dignity is a sensible appeal.
The rally participants are not fanatics for Taiwan's indepen-dence. They do not wish to ratchet up tensions and create conflicts in cross-strait relations, but rather they hope to serve as a force for maintaining peace.
Not only are the pan-blue and pan-green camps aware of this, but Beijing knows it as well. Zhang Nianchi (章念馳), chief advisor to the chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, recently pointed out that China has long neglected the influence of localization, democratization and diversification of Taiwanese society after the lifting of martial law. He said that Beijing has only focused on the homogeniety of the "one country" aspect of the "one country, two systems" policy, and has overlooked the differences allowed for under "two systems."
Zhang obviously noticed that the "one-China policy" has lost support in Taiwan. But he also pointed out that "as long as the `one-China' principle is safeguarded in the international community, Taiwan will never get its independence." He believed that as China is developing peacefully, the Taiwan issue needs to be handled similarly.
Zhang's point is reasonable and objective, despite its overtones of pan-Chinese national-ism. This is the primary difference between his desire for peace and the desires of the rally participants, who are primarily concerned about the nation's future. Yet what can be found from both of them is a foundation of reason and an aspiration for peace, economic development and cooperation.
Such sentiments can serve as the foundation upon which both sides communicate. There will definitely be conflict during the process, but the process does not entail a zero-sum game of winner and loser.
Although many Taiwanese can understand China's desire for peaceful economic development, unfortunately not many Chinese can objectively consider Taiwan's aspirations for peaceful autonomy. If more Chinese politicians could be like Zhang and think in such a sensible way, then more Chinese will be able to sympathize and understand Taiwan's pursuit for a peaceful autonomy.
Only then can the two societies build cross-strait peace and safeguard each other hand-in-hand.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Jennie Shih
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