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.
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