Historical Background: On July 2, 1776, in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress adopted the resolution that declared independence from Great Britain. It declared, in part, "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." The declaration, which explained why the Colonies (now States) declared their independence, was adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) will be re-inaugurated on May 20. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that the US is seriously concerned about Chen's inaugural speech, and that the US will closely observe his words and actions.
As far as we are concerned, Powell's remarks are inappropriate. Since the US is criticizing and commenting on Chen's words and actions, we must tell the US that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, and not a US colony or subordinate nation. The US should exercise self-restraint in its meddling in Taiwan's domestic affairs.
At the same time, we must also remind the US that Taiwan's political landscape has changed dramatically over the years. In particular, the Taiwanese people's national consciousness and demands for national status have become very clear. Almost 90 percent of Taiwanese see Taiwan as a sovereign and independent country, while 84 percent firmly oppose China's "one country, two systems" formula. This is the political reality the US must fully understand. If the US continues to view the Taiwan Strait and the cross-strait relationship according to its one-China policy, unchanged after 30 years, it is running the risk of getting out of touch and violating the political reality. US adherence to a one-China policy will also deepen Taiwan's mistrust and worries about the US. Consequently, we believe it is time for the US to reconsider its one-China policy.
The US bases its approach to the country on the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and the three Sino-US Communiques. The TRA was ratified and took effect in 1979. It is a domestic US law. The US constantly claims that it relies on the TRA to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and protect Taiwan. We are exceedingly grateful for this, but we need to underscore the fact that the TRA is a domestic US law tailored to the US' own national interests and its interests in the Western Pacific region. We have no rights, nor do we have any obligations, with respect to this law.
Furthermore, the three communiques signed by the US and China all state that "there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China." This recognition is far from the current political reality, nor does it tally with the actual situation. A new public opinion and national identification has developed n recent years. The recognition of Taiwan and China as two different countries, one on each side of the Taiwan Strait, is now the consensus of a majority of Taiwanese.
This is Taiwan's new public opinion. If the US keeps following its outdated one-China policy when dealing with the cross-strait issue, it will not only be ignoring the political reality, but it may also misjudge the cross-strait situation and further complicate a solution to the problem.
The US is a modern democracy with several core values -- democracy, freedom and human rights. Taiwan's experience of the democratization process over the past 10 to 15 years has gradually established recognition of a national community. This experience has firmly established some of this community's core values -- democracy, freedom and human rights. Taiwan and the US share the same democratic core values, a fact that binds us closer together. In order to maintain a friendly relationship with a rising China, however, the US must respect China's existence and even the possibility that China could be a potential threat. Taiwan cannot change the fact the US must interact with China in its own national interest. However, we cannot agree when the US turns its back on its own democratic core values, for example by suppressing Taiwan's need for self-determination and national sovereignty, or suppressing the democratic requirements through which Taiwanese use democratic means to complete a referendum or write a new constitution.
When the US constantly demands that Taiwan should engage in dialogue with China, but ignores the fact that China threatens our national government and says that dialogue is only possible if Taiwan accepts the one-China policy, we do not understand US standards for democracy and equality. Nor do we understand when the US sternly says that a nation abiding by democratic core values and respecting democratic procedure -- the ROC -- is not allowed to hold a referendum or write a new constitution, change the status quo or declare independence. And where are the US' democratic core values when they want to observe Chen's words and actions? Does the US still have its nation-building spirit?
We also think of The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, one of the US' founding fathers, which clearly states: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
In fact, the reason for the further separation between Taiwan and China is exactly described in the US declaration: "We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence."
Taiwan is a beautiful nation. The people of Taiwan and those of the US share common values. We firmly believe in the values that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Each word and sentence of these human values are also stated in the US declaration. Has US policy departed from the founding spirit of its core democratic values?
At a time when Taiwan is gradually becoming a whole new nation, and when society is implementing universal democratic values step by step, we deeply hope that Washington can offer its utmost support for Taiwan based on the two countries' shared democratic beliefs. Moreover, in light of Taiwan's new mainstream opinion, and the new political reality in the cross-strait situation, we would like to appeal to Washington: now is the time for the US to review its one-China policy.
Koo Kuan-min is a policy advisor to the president.
Translated by Wang Hsiao-wen, Eddie Chang and Perry Svensson
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
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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS