On Tuesday, President Chen Shui-bian (
In particular, regarding the second referendum topic about pushing for the signing of a treaty on cross-strait peace and stability, so as to seek cross-strait consensus and further the welfare of the people, Chen provided a detailed explanation. This rates as the most unambiguous policy declaration on the prospects for the cross-strait relationship by the government in recent years.
Chen expressed a hope of inviting China to appoint government representatives for discussions about cross-strait negotiations after the presidential election in March this year, and then to formally engage in negotiations based on "one princIple and four major issues."
The "one principle" refers to the principle of peace. The "four major issues" include the following: both sides appointing delegates to communicate directly, authorized by the leaders of the two countries; the two sides appointing permanent delegates to the other side; the two sides establishing representative offices on the other side; and the setting up of a demilitarized zone.
According to Chen, seeking to establish a cross-strait stability and peace framework aligns with the needs of the two sides and will enable both countries to work for the welfare of the people of the two sides.
It cannot be denied that in the current complicated and sensitive cross-strait relationship, Chen's proposal for a "framework for peace and stability " to resolve longstanding political disputes may be able to facilitate the interests of the people of the two sides. Chen's proposal for a referendum for peace is intended to create a popular consensus for national identification and Taiwan sovereignty.
The cross-strait framework for peace and stability is intended to ease the tensions in the Strait after the referendum for peace gains the support of the people. This not only reveals the sincerity of the government about maintaining cross-strait peace, but further highlights Chen's policy on the future of the cross-strait relationship as well as a responsible attitude on the part of Chen.
We think that the peace principle proposed by Chen should be acceptable to both the ruling and opposition camps, as well as the international community. Moreover, the peace principle can be seen as the basis of the four issues accompanying it, as well as a fundamental condition for cross-strait interactions. If the peace principle cannot be upheld, there is no point in talking about anything else.
In other words, if Taiwan unilaterally expects to resolve the standoff with a framework for peace and stability, while China's strategic goals are to engulf Taiwan, oppose its democratic referendum or force it to accept "one country, two systems," then nothing can be accomplished even if the two sides resume negotiations. This is something that people ought to realize as we push for a framework for peace and stability.
The Chinese government continues to insist on the "one China" principle, refuses to acknowledge the fact that neither side of the Strait is part of the other side and continues to be trapped by ideas left over from the days of the civil war with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Therefore, despite repeated negotiations with the Straits Exchange Foundation, China has never ceased to treat peace as bait and has relied primarily on military coercion so as to pressure Taiwan into relinquishing sovereignty and accepting "one country, two systems."
Ranging from its unification propaganda campaign targeting Taiwanese businesspeople, to dragging its feet on negotiating over administrative issues based on technicalities, to deliberate lack of enthusiasm in cooperating on the return to China of illegal Chinese immigrants from Taiwan to the diplomatic assaults on and siege of Taiwan -- these are all means for China to accomplish the goal of engulfing Taiwan one way or the other.
While on the surface China talks about peaceful unification, it has never bothered to conceal its refusal to renounce the use of force. It openly deploys 496 missiles that target Taiwan, placing the people here under threat. Recently, it has tried to interfere with the presidential election and referendum by dealing with so-called "Taiwanese spies."
It has spared no effort in trying to threaten and buy over Taiwanese businessmen. Under the circumstances, it is hard for anyone to believe that China could actually feel sincere about negotiating for peace.
On the other hand, we must also understand that in view of the fundamental nature of the communist regime in China, it can never tolerate the existence of a democratic and free independent country within arm's reach.
The most obvious example is the recent discussion in Hong Kong about whether to popularly elect the chief executive of the special administrative region in 2007. Tsang Hinchi (曾憲梓), a standing committee member of the National People's Congress, declared that the Beijing government would not allow Hong Kong to conduct a popular election because the Chinese Communist Party could not tolerate "anti-China and anti-communist" factions coming into power in Hong Kong.
According to Tsang, "in all of China only one communist party can rule, and Hong Kong is part of China ... an anti-China political party with power together with foreign factions could turn Hong Kong into an anti-China base, and therefore the central government will never allow such people to form a ruling party."
According to China's logic regarding democracy in Hong Kong, if Taiwan implements "one country, two systems" as well, not only can no presidential election be held but the opposition camp can never come into power. The entire democratic system would collapse. There would be no popular election of the "chief executive" either.
It is beyond dispute that after Hong Kong's handover to China in 1997 the level of democracy there backtracked.
On July 1 last year, as many as 500,000 people took to the streets in protest and another 100,000 did the same on New Year's Day this year. What they demanded was nothing other than democracy and freedom.
In view of the experience of the people of Hong Kong, how can Taiwan throw itself into a Chinese trap and hold any illusions about "peace" with China?
We do not oppose what Chen said about having the two sides formally appoint authorized delegates to engage in negotiations and to establish a long-term framework for cross-strait interactions. However, we believe that from negotiations on peaceful topics to the future signing of a peace treaty, we must insist that the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are different countries, neither side belonging to the other and that each side must respect the equality of the other.
Negotiations and the signing of a treaty must proceed on the condition that the welfare of the Taiwanese people and the security of the country will be safeguarded. While we support the government's plan to push for a framework for cross-strait peace, we must also remind all citizens and the ruling and opposition camps to not hold on to unrealistic illusions about cross-strait peace or to over-optimistically believe that peace is at hand.
Some people always turn a blind eye to China's obstruction of this country's democratic development, and in fact dance to the Chinese tune in opposing referendums and democracy.
Such internal divisions will turn Taiwan into a laughingstock of democracy and China will be the one laughing in the end.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing