Print

Mail

wiki links

Stability is the key to sovereignty

A recent statement by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has made the question of whether the Republic of China (ROC) exists a focus of arguments between political parties as well as an issue hotly discussed among the public.

Let's first look at the statement Lee made at the recent rally held by the Alliance to Campaign for Rectifying the Name of Taiwan: "The ROC no longer exists."

What he meant is that the nation's official title, the ROC, is no longer a suitable symbol for the sovereignty of the 23 million people living on the territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu because the national structure of the ROC established in 1912 has undergone drastic changes geographically and politically. The nation's title does not fit its sovereignty implications.

Therefore, a movement is needed to correct the situation, building the people's consensus on sovereignty internally and disentangling the tangled sovereignty problem with China externally. Moreover, in consideration of the methods and ways for entering the UN, the ROC seems to have walked an increasingly narrow road.

It is therefore rational and natural to consider using other names to attain the goal of entering the UN, not to mention the fact that diversified thinking on various issues is undoubtedly permitted in Taiwanese society.

Let's first clarify two facts.

First, the territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu enjoys independent sovereignty. The nation's title is the Republic of China. The 23 million people living in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu are called citizens of the ROC.

This is a fact and is not controverted simply because this nation is not a member of the UN.

Second, the ROC lacks general recognition in the international community. A majority of countries do not think that the ROC is a country and believe that its sovereignty either has been inherited by the PRC or belongs to the PRC. The international community generally acknowl-edges or recognizes that there is only "one China." This is also a fact.

These facts exist indepen-dently. The first fact is fixed and hinges on our confirmation of de facto sovereignty and internal sovereignty. The second fact is restricted by uncertainty in the international community and the PRC regarding the disputes of the ROC's de jure sovereignty and "external sovereignty."

But we have to emphasize that using different names to represent sovereignty does not cause any harm to the existence of sovereignty. As long as the Constitution is amended and consensus is reached among the public, a title representing a sovereign entity can be changed.

The second act is changeable and more complex. The ROC's predicament is that the international community sees some overlap between the implication of the ROC-represented sovereignty and that of the PRC-represented sovereignty. If the ROC wants to break through the sovereignty difficulty it faces in the international community, this will only be possible after the PRC changes its attitude on the ROC's sovereignty and the international political structure is reversed drastically.

Coexistence of the above-mentioned two facts gives rise to inconsistency between the ROC's internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. This situation will undoubtedly have a direct and enormous influence on the nation's interests.

We believe that in light of national interests, the name rectification campaign is being taken in the right direction. Pursuing identical internal and external sovereignty tallies with the interests of the people.

We also believe that using "Taiwan" as the nation's title can better describe the sovereignty currently held by the people in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and, moreover, settle the controversy over the sovereignty problem with the PRC.

But we worry whether the substitution of Taiwan for the ROC can immediately harmonize our internal sovereignty with external sovereignty.

The crux actually lies, not in the name of the nation, but in the international political reality shaped by the PRC's powerful existence.

As long as this key factor remains unchanged, Taiwan's pursuit of identical internal and external sovereignty is doomed to be a long, laborious process.

The notion of "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait has won majority support among the people in Taiwan As time goes by, this consensus will be strengthened, this trend will become more apparent and the structure will be stabilized.

On one side is the PRC and on the other is the ROC or a country identified by other names. Such names, in fact, are open to discussion. It takes only two steps -- building consensus and amending the Constitution -- to decide the nation's title.

What's more worrying is any alteration to the ROC's title might induce an irrational response from the PRC and drastic changes in international political interactions. This would seriously threaten overall national security as well as economic and social stability.

To harmonize internal and external sovereignty is a clear and legitimate goal. But this should be attained from the bottom up -- starting from education and cultural influence, changing names of economic and social organiza-tions, to reinforcing awareness of localization and forming a stronger public consensus.

Based on this foundation, we would be able to form natural and distinct sovereignty features and draw a dividing line from the PRC in the international community. I believe this can protect our national security as well as economic and social stability.

Hong Chi-chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.

Translated by Jackie Lin
This story has been viewed 1737 times.