When President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) last year said that he wanted the Taiwanese people to get accustomed to the democratic mechanism of a referendum, hordes of US think-tank figures fell over one another to condemn such "provocative" words. Just imagine: it might be used to change the "status quo!" Never mind that the present status quo derives from an anachronistic "one China" policy, itself the result of two Chinese regimes fighting a Civil War. Never mind also that a referendum is a widely-accepted mechanism for gauging people's views almost anywhere in the world.
Suddenly, in the view of these think-tank pundits, it became "provocative" to even talk about it, let alone apply it to major issues which determine the nation's future.
The storm of commentaries then increased when Chen dared to suggest he would steer the country toward a new constitution. According to the think-tank folks, this meant destruction and disaster would befall the island. Never mind that the present Constitution of the "Republic of China" was drafted by China's National Assembly in Nanking on Dec. 25, 1946, and promulgated by Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) regime on Jan. 1, 1947. Some two-thirds of its articles are outdated.
Here are some examples of how outdated it really is. The flag of the "Republic of China" is based on the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) flag, and was selected in China in the 1920s (Article 6). The territory of the "Republic of China" encompasses all of China, including "Outer Mongolia" and Tibet (Article 26). And the national anthem is a 1928 KMT song that has nothing to do with Taiwan.
It would therefore be practical and logical for the Taiwanese to devise a new constitution that meets the needs of the country today.
But the US Department of State and the White House have put their feet in concrete and their heads in the sand, telling Taiwan in no uncertain terms that there should be no new constitution, and certainly no changes to the Constitution which touch upon the issue of sovereignty. Only changes which would enhance governance would be acceptable.
To any reasonable person, such a position sounds ludicrous, but there are apparently people in Washington who maintain this position with a straight face. The reason for this, of course, is that they are playing to the "sensitivities" of Beijing.
So, let us see how "sensitive" Beijing is these days. On May 17, a few days before Chen's inauguration, China's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) declared that China would "completely annihilate" any moves toward Taiwanese independence, no matter what the cost, even the loss of the summer Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008 -- a clear reference to military action if necessary. If Taiwan pursues independence, the statement warned, "the Chinese people will crush their schemes firmly and thoroughly at any cost."
To the casual observer, this looks like a rather provocative statement. However, the only thing State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli could say was that China's statement was "unhelpful."
To the casual observer it seems that there are two measures being applied: when Taiwan wants to make a baby-step in the direction of normality and acceptance in the international community, it is branded as "provocation." When big bully China throws its weight around, we have to tiptoe through the tulips. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
By the way, Kenneth Lieberthal and other think-tank friends: you came down hard on Chen for making his referendum statements in November and December last year. But we still haven't heard your reaction to China's statements.
Provocative, perhaps. Or just unhelpful?
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS