Print

Mail

wiki links

Referendum to dicide nation's path

The Legislative Yuan has passed a Referendum Law (公民投票法) consisting of a massive 64 articles, nine times more than the US Constitution, which consists of seven articles. As soon as the law had been passed, arguments over the question of when the defensive referendum stipulated in Article 17 was applicable shook the world, leading to Chinese threats and US warnings. Do China and the US in fact understand the scenario that is being played out in Taiwan? I myself had to read DPP Legislator Lin Cho-shui's (林濁水) article "Atypical discourse" (非典型的論述) in the Apple Daily before I understood.

Lin writes, "A defensive referendum is a strategic weapon of deterrence that absolutely must to be connected with the unification versus independence issue. Not connecting it this way would make it a bomb stripped of all explosives, a dud. It must not be rashly used, but it would be even more inappropriate to rashly strip it of all its explosive power."

From Lin to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), everyone has "stolen" the defensive referendum concept and turned it into a weapon for attack, just like the two sides during the Cold War era who aimed large-scale strategic weapons at the other side. The significance of the defensive referendum, however, is exactly the opposite. Taiwan has long abandoned all attempts to "destroy" China -- that is, to destroy the Communist Party and restore power to the ROC.

Taiwan's defensive referendum is definitely not about using destruction to deter China; rather, its purpose is to follow Article 17 in the Referendum Law which states that "when the nation is exposed to an external threat which threatens a change in national sovereignty, the president may, following a resolution by the Cabinet, place matters of national security before the public for decision in a national referendum."

In other words, the purpose is to let the public express its refusal to accept changes to the country's current independence and sovereignty. Such an expression of public opinion is appropriate at a time when China is using force to threaten to change the status quo of Taiwan's national sovereignty. It would also be appropriate if China threatened to change the status quo of Taiwan's sovereignty at a future negotiation.

The problem today is the question of whether the current threat is an "external threat" which "threatens a change in national sovereignty." The answer is "without a doubt." The reason why Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) was so impatient to have the US newspaper The Washington Post interview him in Beijing prior to his visit to the US was that he wanted to issue this very threat. According to the The Washington Post's executive editor Leonard Downie Jr., Wen stressed that China "will pay any price to safeguard the unity of the motherland."

That one sentence divulges their true intentions. "Unity" means a change to Taiwan's current status as a sovereign country. "Will pay any price" is a serious threat. But Wen does not want war. I've said that neither Taiwan the the US nor China wants war, so how could there be a war? Lien's call on hundreds of thousands of mothers to write Chen to oppose war was just a repetition of the trick that he used during the 2000 presidential election to incite fear of war. He is trying to deceive both himself and others, and this attempt isn't even worth laughing at.

Wen's threats are obviously not aimed at Taiwan alone, but at the US too. He wants the US to help China threaten Taiwan, and so achieve his goal of changing Taiwan's current status as a sovereign country.

Will the US fall for China's tricks?

Of course not. The George W. Bush administration keeps clarifying its stance. It is clear and consistent, not in the least fuzzy. In particular, the White House official who wanted to remain anonymous during an interview with Hong Kong's Phoenix TV on Nov. 26 gave a thorough explanation of US policies under a barrage of journalists' questions. The core concept is that the US opposes any attempt by China or Taiwan to unilaterally change the status quo.

When journalists asked questions that compared "supporting Taiwan's democratic development" with "maintaining the status quo," the official unambiguously said that Taiwan's democratic mechanisms will continue to develop rapidly, that holding referendums is a legitimate way for democratic entities to implement democracy, and that there is no reason for anyone to assert that Taiwan does not have the right to a good, useful and modern constitution.

At the same time, he also unequivocally pointed out that over 80 percent of the people of Taiwan have said that they want to maintain the status quo, and said that he did not believe that democracy somehow would force Taiwan to change the status quo.

I think this White House official understands Taiwanese politics better than all the gentlemen in the pan-green and pan-blue camps, from Lin to Lien.

Since democracy will not force Taiwan to change the status quo, what force could force such a change? One such force is threats from China, external to Taiwan. Another such force is people in Taiwan not recognizing their own country's sovereignty, but instead recognizing the sovereignty of China over Taiwan. Once these two forces are joined together, the crucial moment when Taiwan will be forced to change its sovereignty will have arrived.

March 20 next year may be that crucial moment.

The defensive referendum will require that the Taiwanese people make an evaluation at that historical moment.

Either they will choose to identify with Taiwan and maintain Taiwan's current status as a sovereign and independent country, or they will choose to identify with China, leave Taiwan's sovereignty by the wayside and sign a comprehensive agreement with China to change Taiwan's status as a sovereign and independent country.

On March 20 next year, voters will therefore not merely elect a president, but also decide the direction of their country, the fate of Taiwan.

Ruan Ming is a visiting professor at Tamkang University and was a special assistant to Chinese Communist Party secretary-general Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦).

Translated by Perry Svensson
This story has been viewed 2137 times.