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
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS