As a result of the meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
Everyone ought to still remember that during the campaigns for presidential and legislative elections last year, President Chen loudly called for referendums, rectification of the names of Taiwan businesses and government offices abroad and the adoption of a new constitution -- triggering much international concern as a result. Those voters who supported him knew perfectly well that such campaign promises cannot necessarily be implemented immediately. However, at least they believed in Chen's determination to uphold Taiwan's sovereignty and security. In a country where Taiwan consciousness heightens by the days, many so-called moderate voters naturally cast their votes for Chen and DPP legislators.
Unfortunately, after Chen's successful re-election, and especially after his appointment of Frank Hsieh as the new premier, those campaign platforms were one by one labeled "controversial" and then swept under the rug. At the time, most people did no more than criticize Premier Hsieh for deferring discussions of issues such as name rectification and the adoption of a new constitution. Now people finally realize that these changes were closely linked with President Chen. Both Chen and Soong are happy with the ten-point consensus reached during their meeting. However, those people who support nativization are deeply disappointed.
Among the ten points, those related to the ROC Constitution and the commitment to not touch upon sovereignty and territorial issues in constitutional and political reforms have essentially sentenced Taiwan to death. Taiwan will continue to live under the shadow of the ROC Constitution, which was imposed by an alien regime. What a sad story for Taiwan's democracy. As Premier Hsieh once indicated, the ROC Constitution recognizes "one China." So long as Taiwan lives under this "one China" constitution, Taiwan remains vulnerable to to the People's Republic of China's "one China" principle. This also gives China even more justification for drafting its anti-secession law. Bluntly put, the conclusion reached between Chen and Soong will only make Taiwan's survival in the international community even more difficult.
Pushing for cross-strait economic exchanges and direct cargo links -- or even direct passenger links based on the charter flights during the Lunar New Year -- will jeopardize Taiwan's survival. In the past four years, Taiwan has eased restrictions on investment in China, intensifying the speed of the flow of capital and technology to China and giving rise to serious unemployment and other industrial problems. United Microelectronics Corp's (
Ironically, the ten-point consensus went on to say that any change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait will require the consensus of the 23 million people of Taiwan. However, the points regarding the ROC Constitution have already ordered euthanasia for Taiwan's sovereignty, while those regarding cross-strait trade are euthanasia for Taiwan's economy. Aren't these all changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait? Have Chen and Soong asked for the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan? In particular, the president did not even bother to check with the voters who elected him, let alone the 23 million people of Taiwan. How is this different from conning the voters? The level of popular support for the ten-point consensus will be reflected in future elections.
After the ten-point consensus was released, the PFP could barely hold back their smirks. Some PFP lawmakers said the ten-point consensus incorporates all the ideals of pan-blue voters. Other PFP lawmakers said that all ten points reflect genuine and pure pan-blue ideals. Soong even explicitly pointed out that Taiwan independence is not an option. In other words, the ten-point consensus signified President Chen's surrender to the pan-blue camp and to China. Chen, who was elected by a majority of the people, has become the executor of the campaign platforms of his defeated election opponents. This is rarely seen in a democracy. No wonder everyone who support nativization feels enraged and is unable to understand Chen's betrayal of his campaign platforms.
The ten-point consensus also raised the issue of easing ethnic rivalry and promoting ethnic harmony. This, of course, is laughable. Over the years, through marriages and other personal and business relationships across ethnic groups, so-called ethnic tension has long ceased to be a real issue. Ethnic frictions within society are not an issue at all. The so-called ethnic or racial problems nowadays are generated by politicians in order to further their own interests in elections or power struggles. In terms of this issue, both Chen and Soong have much self-examination to do.
In a nutshell, with the ten-point consensus, there seems to be no need for China to draft the "anti-secession law" anymore. The consensus between Chen and Soong is the equivalent of Taiwan's own version of the "anti-secession law." Now that President Chen has destroyed Taiwan's sovereignty, why should China bother to dirty its own hands? Countries such as Japan and the US have taken a series of moves in recent days to caution China against playing with the fire by enacting its "anti-secession law." However, the leader of this country has willingly accepted the curse of the "one China" constitution just because he needs a legislative majority and in order to facilitate the passage of bills.
According to the ten-point consensus, mutual peace is the supreme guiding principle in this phase of the cross-strait relationship. Peace is of course everyone's hope. However, in order to pursue peace, embracing the "one China" constitution and freezing Taiwan's sovereignty is extremely problematic. As pointed out by a declaration of the Taiwan Presbyterian Church, "inter-party negotiation and cooperation must be preconditioned on the independence of Taiwan's sovereignty" and Taiwan should draft a "Taiwan and China Relations Act." Therefore, the ten-point consensus is indeed very disappointing.
We would like to make a public appeal, as the Presbyterian Church had already done: As the leader of Taiwan -- whose sovereignty awaits reinforcement -- your inevitable fate is to face challenges and difficulties of all kinds. Nevertheless, President Chen, you should be strong and persevere in order to pass the test. Do not seek simply to peacefully complete your term.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS