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
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS