Earth to Beijing: Get a life! The boys in Beijing just don't get it. During many discussions relating to Taiwan and China, I have heard Chinese insist that it is only natural for a mother to want to have a child return to her bosom. This homely image is usually shattered whenever it is suggested that the wayward child would prefer to remain outside the fold. Despite their professed love for their brothers in Taiwan, they show a remarkable willingness to bomb them into oblivion if they do not reciprocate.
This pairing of mother's love with "nuke-'em-til-they-glow" threats is twisted, to say the least. It recalls the logic (?) expressed by the US military during the Vietnam conflict that it might be necessary to destroy a village to save it. As it is, China has at least 500 missiles armed and aimed at Taiwan. If tensions are rising on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, it is not hard to see where the source lies. Chinese leaders continue to make substantial increases in military spending while confirming that reunification is their top priority and the core issue for their relations with the US. For its part, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is actively improving its capabilities for a full military invasion of Taiwan. The aim of its training is to perfect a multi-pronged blitzkrieg to secure a foothold to pre-empt US reaction.
To this end, the PLA conducts massive joint-force exercises that simulate an invasion of Taiwan from China's southeastern coast.
As in other independent countries, threats from a bellicose and bullying neighbor encourage the threatened people to rally around those they believe will protect their interests. It is hard for Beijing to make the case that bombing Taiwan into submission serves the best interest of Taiwan's inhabitants.
Threats of aggression have reinforced the development of a distinctive Taiwanese identity. A recent response to China's saber rattling was the largest demonstration in Taiwan's history when over a million people joined hands to create a human chain traversing the entire length of the country.
Public-opinion surveys indicate that Taiwanese identity has grown over the past decade with over 40 percent of inhabitants viewing themselves as Taiwanese only. Meanwhile, a slightly larger percentage sees their identity as both Taiwanese and Chinese. In all events, Beijing depends upon fabricated logic and imaginary historical claims to support its efforts to exclude Taiwan from various international organizations. Never mind the nationalistic assertions, historical facts offer little support for Beijing's claims for its suzerainty over Taiwan. Looking back into the distant past of the island of Formosa, it is well known that it was originally inhabited by Aboriginal peoples.
Eventually Portuguese sailors arrived in and around the country before significant Chinese settlements appeared there.
Then, in 1624, the Dutch arrived and were soon followed by the Spanish.
China's political influence on Taiwan began in 1661 after officials linked to the Ming dynasty displaced the Dutch. In 1683, the Qing took over Taiwan but ceded it to Japan in 1895. After spending nearly 50 years under Japanese control, Taiwan became the refuge of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chiang Kai-shek (
It is chimerical that a country founded upon a Marxist-Leninist ideology would be willing to depend upon sovereignty claims based upon imperial conquest and unequal treaties.
After all, demands for assumption of political control over Hong Kong and Macau were based upon repudiating just these conditions.
Forget about the rhetoric. It is clear that the leadership in Beijing cares nothing about multi-party, pluralistic democracy, nor is it sensitive to the aspirations of a free people. This is evident in dismissive remarks about the lack of "patriotism" among Hong Kong's democrats. They are dismissed as incompetent because they insist upon self-determination for Hong Kong residents instead of promoting the interests of a distant autocratic regime.
Recently, the Chinese Communist Party issued histrionic complaints that a referendum for a new constitution for Taiwan would violate international law. Concerning proposed changes in Taiwan's Constitution, it can only be an improvement.
The existing document was formulated in Nanjing in 1947 by Chiang's KMT to secure a one-party dictatorship.
Revisions are needed to support the vibrant, multiparty democracy that now operates in Taiwan.
Either as an act of arrogance and hypocrisy or willful deception, lectures on legal niceties from dictatorial single-party regimes hardly merit consideration.
If Beijing is so concerned about due process, it should welcome a referendum to determine whether people in Taiwan wish to reunite with China under the current regime.
As it is, there is no explicit universal acceptance of China's sovereignty over Taiwan. China's threat to use force against Taiwan has no more basis in international law than would military aggression against Japan or India.
Christopher Lingle is professor of economics at Georgetown University.
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