President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) recently told a Taichung gathering that he had decided to transform the nine-member cross-strait affairs task force into a "cross-strait peace development committee." This committee is intended to issue "cross-strait peace development guidelines" as the basis of implementing government policy to establish cross-strait consensus.
Chen emphasized that while Taiwan is facing Chinese military threats, a diplomatic siege and economic challenges, it could not afford to be divided, and that its people must have a clear concept of national identity and an awareness of potential crisis, and should not mistake an enemy state for one's own country.
The peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait is not only compatible with the interests of Taiwan and neighboring countries, but is also constructive for the entire international order.
Therefore not only has Taiwan long endeavored to protect the stability of the Taiwan Strait, but the international community has given a high priority to the situation here.
Over the past decade, with the end of the Cold-War era and also of the so-called "period of Communist rebellion" that rationalized martial law, the government has long regarded pushing for cross-strait peace as a standing policy.
Both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) governments and the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government have demonstrated sincerity in seeking cross-strait peace through action.
Yet these efforts seeking cross-strait peace have been consistently met with a cold shoulder by China. Chen's proposal for "cross-strait peace development guidelines" was no exception. This situation highlights the reality that the potential threat to cross-strait peace comes from China, not Taiwan.
It is very easy to appreciate this fact, since China has never ceased efforts to eradicate Taiwan's sovereignty and to change the sovereign status quo of Taiwan.
China continues to escalate its military threats with no intention to hide its military deployments in this regard. This is not to mention the economic unification propaganda efforts it has waged.
On the surface, China may have sugar-coated its poison, declaring that it will "peacefully unify" Taiwan under a policy of "one country, two systems." In reality, China has always adopted a two-handed policy of peace and war.
On the one hand, it puts on the act of seeking peaceful unification, while on the other hand actively prepares both militarily and economically.
US military officials have said during congressional hearings that the People's Liberation Army is determined to focus on preparing for military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. The quantity and quality of its short-range missiles targeting Taiwan have drastically escalated. Talk about so-called peaceful unification under "one country, two systems" is thus laughable.
Recognizing China's ambition, US warnings against China about using force against Taiwan have become more direct. Not long after the presidential election, the US announced the sale of long-range radar defense systems to Taiwan.
That the US is concerned about imbalanced military power between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait goes without saying. Taiwan hopes to seek peace, yet China is getting ready for use of force.
Under the circumstances, Taiwan has no choice but to continue to strengthen its defensive capability. This is a destiny we cannot escape. Regrettably, the unification camp has accused the government of engaging in an arms race against China, completely ignoring that Chinese military threats are offensive in nature, while our national defense is defensive.
The unification camp has also erroneously claimed that the obstacle to cross-strait peace is the government's refusal to accept the "one China" principle. They echoed the Beijing leadership in saying that if Taiwan accepts this principle and concedes that it is part of China, cross-strait tension will turn into peace.
They must seriously rethink such statements. Such an approach is not seeking cross-strait peace, but surrendering to Chinese threats. Once Taiwan surrenders to China, it can only helplessly sit back and watch. What kind of peace would that be?
The so-called "cross-strait peace" really is peace between two countries. Therefore this kind of peace must be based on reciprocity and equality, and not conditioned on sacrificing Taiwan's sovereignty.
Thus the principle of "unification under one country, two systems" is a complete fraud. It is invasion under the empty slogan of peace, and is more accurately depicted instead as "euthanasia of sovereignty."
So in the process of seeking cross-strait peace, the government must insist on equal footing in sovereignty between the two sides.
Taiwan should continue to seek cross-strait peace and to try to expand its international space simultaneously.
As a sovereign country, Taiwan is entitled to participate in international organizations and to establish formal diplomatic ties with other nations. China seeks to have all of Taiwan's allies sever diplomatic ties, blocking the nation's space for diplomacy.
Under these circumstances, some people actually say that to seek cross-strait peace, the government should not generate friction in the international community.
This is completely reversing cause and effect, as both the cross-strait relationship and international space are critical to Taiwan's future.
"Taiwanese unity, a secure cross-strait relationship, a stable society, and economic prosperity" is how Chen has summarized his policy goals since his re-election. The "cross-strait peace development guidelines" derive from this policy goal. Surely most people agree with the goal of cross-strait peace, and the international community would be more than happy to see it happen.
The government should refrain from wishful thinking and from unilaterally expressing goodwill at all costs, including sacrificing industries, the economy and job opportunities. It takes two to tango. Cross-strait peace is a goal that awaits hard work from both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
If China does not give up its proclaimed right to use force against Taiwan and the "one China" principle, peace will not be easily obtainable.
We believe if China does not reciprocate with basic goodwill, then instead of wasting time on this topic the government might as well put its focus on Taiwanese unity, social stability and economic prosperity, because these issues are not only within our control but are the most powerful bargaining chips in efforts to seek cross-strait peace.
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS