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
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