Once again Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) has hit the nail on the head by calling a spade a spade. (Vice President Lu touts `two Chinas,'" March 6, page 3.) As former president Lee Teng-Hui (李登輝) accurately advocated in 1996, there are currently two states on each side of the Taiwan Strait. These states -- the Republic of China (ROC) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) -- have the common denominator of "China," but the overriding factor is that there are in reality two Chinas. Lu is correct that the time has come once and for all to make this situation clear to the world.
The people of Taiwan are indeed worthy of, and entitled to, formal international representation. This is not dependent on any immediate acceptance of "one China," which is for the time being not only fallacious but also preposterous, given the nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime's present modus operandi.
We are often told that unifying the motherland is some sort of CCP sacred mission. Is it part of the sacred mission to drown Tibetan culture and aspirations in a sea of CCP-orchestrated mass migration? Is it part of the sacred mission to deem the people of Hong Kong "not ready" for real democracy? Is it part of the sacred mission to continue to imprison political opposition, to economically abuse so-called "cheap labor" and to deny the Chinese people their basic human rights? What then does this sacred mission hold in store for the Taiwanese?
Taiwan has moved away from brutal repression and government by fear, corruption, and cronyism. This liberation, although imperfect, is still a hard-won platform of freedom upon which the people of Taiwan continue to interact and progress. No CCP "sacred mission" can alter this fact.
The PRC, thinly veiled in exploitative and unstable economic advancement, remains a society where basic rights and freedoms are, to all intents and purposes, non-existent. The primary governmental motivation is the perpetuation of the CCP elite's status and privileges. This CCP aristocracy will continue with its belligerent posturing and unilateral definition of cross-strait relations, the status quo, while stoking the flames of a phantom unification nationalism, to deflect attention from the ongoing domestic subjugation of the Chinese people.
Lu's assertion is in fact restating the obvious, and it is incumbent on the people of Taiwan to demand their rightful place at the UN.
Independence is not an issue. Taiwan is not only independent of the CCP regime in Beijing, it is also a functioning democracy with undeniable sovereignty. Any question of future unification is an issue that only the people of Taiwan have the hard-earned right to decide. The CCP has no mandate to make any decisions on behalf of the Taiwanese people.
Moreover, the CCP's anti-succession law should now compel Taiwanese of all hues to make their voices heard. Their freedom exists, their country exists and both need immediate action to defend, reinforce and ultimately preserve these achievements for future generations. The last thing Taiwan, or the PRC, needs is a new CCP dynasty built on the false premise of an already failed, self-serving and much altered Chinese Socialism, cloaked in an equally fictitious and destructive nouveau "Pan-Chinese Nationalism."
That the Taiwanese remain unrepresented at the UN is largely due to an essential lack of internal unity on this issue. Today's Taiwan represents all that China is not -- being a peaceful, multicultural society, which has overcome many historical encumbrances and evolved into a non-violent, inclusive democracy of increasing tolerance and understanding. But how on Earth can the global community be expected to acknowledge and support these accomplishments, when the Taiwanese people have not made their position unambiguous and clearly supportable?
As Lu points out, these basics need to be urgently addressed to attain heightened international awareness and acceptance of the true "two Chinas" status quo.
David Kay
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS