An interesting thing has come about. In 2000, Beijing announced in a white paper entitled One China Principle and the Taiwan Question that the Republic of China (ROC) had already been replaced by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Since, in Beijing's understanding, the ROC no longer exists, why would it choose to resort to force rather than allow Taiwan to "negate" the existence of the ROC?
Beijing considers the ROC to be a remnant of the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and thus the cause for "re-unification" with Taiwan is a sacred mission for all Chinese. Once Taiwan is "liberated," the ROC will be history.
Beijing's intention in enacting an "anti-secession" law is simply to cover up its inability to "liberate" and "re-unify" Taiwan. However, so long as Taiwan continues to retain the name "ROC," the old framework of the civil war between the CCP and the KMT remains in place.
Following the transition of power in 2000, Taiwan absolutely had an opportunity to reverse this historical process and distance itself further from China to resolve what China calls the continuation of the civil war. After the KMT's defeat in the presidential elections in 2000 and last year, the antagonistic situation between the KMT and the CCP no longer exists. What remains is this phoney name: the ROC. Therefore, the ultimate goal of Taiwan's democratization is very obvious.
To deliver a goodwill gesture to the People First Party (PFP), President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) announced in a summit with PFP leader James Soong (宋楚瑜) last week that the ROC is the common denominator for both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Politically, the announcement recognized that the civil war between the KMT and the CCP has yet to end.
In addition, Chen did not say if he was forced into making this announcement because the opposition parties hold a legislative majority or because he was under pressure from the US. The moment the 10-point agreement reached between Chen and Soong was released, it provoked a backlash within both the green and blue camps. The agreement has shown how terrifying it is to have the "ROC" as a national title.
First, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
What the Chen-Soong summit has generated is legitimacy for "re-unification" with China. I predict that more confrontation and polarization will occur if this trend facilitates reconciliation between the DPP and the PFP.
Nonetheless, the biggest threat is posed not by the pan-blue camp, but by Beijing. The details of China's proposed anti-secession law have yet to be released, nor have they been discussed. This has forced the DPP to return to the meaningless talk of civil war.
However, Beijing will not be satisfied with simply the continuation of the civil war between the KMT and the CCP. Rather, it would like to end the civil war. No wonder Beijing has arbitrarily and unilaterally confirmed that the "one China" principle is based on the 1992 consensus. Let us mull over chairman Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) sarcastic logic: if peace is our sole end, we can achieve that simple peace at any time by surrendering ourselves.
Is the 10-point agreement the beginning of reconciliation or upheaval? Let us wait and see.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
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