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
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS