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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS