The clearest signal sent by the presidential election is that mainstream opinion in Taiwan has changed. The pan-green camp's vote has jumped from 40 percent in 2000 to 50 percent this year, showing that a feeling of Taiwanese identity has expanded.
The Chinese Communist Party had always placed its hope in the people of Taiwan, but this election has shown that the Tai-wanese people are neither interested in nor willing to accept Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems." Mainstream opinion here is now heading in the opposite direction, away from unification. In other words, China's hopes for support from the Taiwanese have been dashed.
If Beijing and Washington were not convinced about this trend four years ago, then they should be now. They must deal with the reality of Taiwan. No matter how Beijing adjusts its policy, it is no longer possible to make "one country, two systems" the core of that policy.
The Taiwanese people should receive congratulations for this election, because their democracy is now able to stand up to the test of post-election conflict between political parties. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance refused to admit defeat, attempting to launch a mass movement, the whole world was watching to see if Taiwan's democracy would remain stable.
The fact is, despite the confrontation we see at the moment, the two camps have agreed to accept the results of a recount and resolve the conflict by legal means. With this, a political struggle has, in the end, returned to the constitutional framework. This is a victory for Taiwan's democracy, and a vindication of its democratic ideology.
Compared to the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations in Beijing, during which the Chinese Communist Party shot its own civilians and students, the relatively peaceful protests of the Taiwanese people have highlighted the democratic system's function of stabilizing society. This is a source of inspiration and encouragement to the Chinese people who thirst for democracy. Massive, violent conflict is unlikely to occur in a real democratic society, and Taiwan is the best example of this.
China has misread Taiwan's situation for a long time in two ways. First, Beijing misjudged mainstream public opinion, believing that the people's resistance to unification had merely been aroused by a minor pro-independence element, rather than an appeal from within the greater body of the people. Second, Beijing miscalculated by thinking it was able to stop a tectonic shift in mainstream opinion by issuing threats.
China is also placing hope in the US, but this strategy faces enormous obstacles. US diplomatic policy prioritizes the national interest, and this is why Beijing has been able to gain concessions from Washington over North Korea and other issues. But the promotion of US-style democracy is also a basis of US diplomacy. Thus, the US government is unlikely to sacrifice too much democracy for the sake of national interest.
Although the US strongly opposed Taiwan holding a referendum at first, it remained ambiguous in its stance, exhibiting a kind of dualism in its diplomacy. If Beijing puts excessive faith in Washington, then their unrealistic hopes will also be dashed.
China should hold more hope for itself. Confrontation and estrangement between China and Taiwan is the result of the gap between political systems. It will only be possible for the two sides to seek a certain kind of unification when China brings about democratization and erases this gap. China will only push Taiwan further away if it continues to maintain a dictatorship while persisting with military threats.
Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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