Taiwan is in trouble with the US, whose support is absolutely essential to the survival of the nation.
The first sign of trouble came last December when US President George W. Bush, after meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
In a recent congressional hearing, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly was even more blunt, warning that Taiwan risked losing US support if Chen changed the status quo through amending the Constitution. In Taiwan, David Keegan, deputy director of the American Institute in Taiwan, called on A-bian (
Is Washington conspiring with Beijing to force Taiwan into compliance with the "one China" formula in the name of preserving the "status quo?" Perhaps not. But one thing is certain: China has succeeded in weakening the US' resolve to protect Taiwan by taking advantage of the US' preoccupation with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the fight against international terrorism. The US needs China's assistance in reigning in North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The US must also remain mindful of its booming trade with and investment in China, on which US consumers and corporations heavily depend. Those factors are reason enough for the Bush administration to want to accommodate China on Taiwan.
How can the A-bian administration keep Taiwan from one day finding itself with no choice but to begin negotiating with Beijing on the basis of "one China" or a variation of it?
A-bian should hold a referendum as soon as possible and ask his people a simple and straightforward question: Do you favor the unification of Taiwan with China?
Such a referendum should proceed with or without the US' support. In fact, the US has no reason to object to it, because it is not designed to change the status quo. On the contrary, if a large majority of Taiwanese should reject unification, as is expected, the referendum would reinforce the status quo. While China uses the status quo to prevent Taiwan from drifting toward independence, Taiwan can use the same status quo to dissuade China from using force. Additionally, a resounding vote against unification would send a powerful message to the world that unification is not an option for Taiwanese people.
Such a referendum would provide A-bian with a strong mandate to undertake the constitutional overhaul he has promised. The small margin by which he won re-election hardly constitutes a mandate for carrying out a revision of the fundamental law of the land.
The March 20 referendums failed because the two items on which the people were asked to vote (missile defense and negotiation with China) clearly fall within the domain of executive decisions.
This allowed the pan-blue camp to label the referendums an "election gambit." In contrast, voting for or against unification is a question of fundamental concern to all the people of Taiwan, regardless of their political inclinations or ethnic affiliations. If skillfully handled, the referendum could pave the way for ethnic harmony by providing people with political common ground.
Finally, by carrying out such a referendum, A-bian could help Taiwanese realize their century-old dream of self-determination.
In the past 110 years, decisions have been made on several occasions which affected the sovereignty of Taiwan: the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), the Cairo Declaration (1943), the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951), the Shanghai Communique (1972) and the US' recognition of the People's Republic of China (1979). Not in a single instance were the Taiwanese people ever consulted.
Today, Taiwanese control their own government. It is up to the A-bian administration to give the people a chance to exercise their right of self-determination. Let them clearly say yes or no to unification.
For Taiwan to continue to survive as a free, democratic and prosperous society, it has to break the "one-China" spell cast by Beijing and subscribed to by Washington.
But before Taiwan can ask the US to change its stance, Taiwan must demonstrate that good reasons for change exist. An overwhelming vote against unification could be a first step toward a review of the US's "one China" policy.
Caveat: For such a referendum to be effective, 65 percent to 75 percent of eligible voters must vote against unification. To achieve this result, careful preparation and skillful communication with all political groups are essential. Enlisting the support of those working for the rectification of Taiwan's name -- a movement led by former president Lee Teng-hui (
Edward Chen is professor emeritus of history residing in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. E-mail: edchen@velocity.net
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS