To put the agreement between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese authorities into perspective, just imagine that George McGovern, the Democratic challenger to US president Richard Nixon in 1972, had -- to boost his electoral chances -- flown off to Moscow and concluded a 10-point agreement with the Soviet Union. That the US would have been in uproar and McGovern accused of treason is a foregone conclusion. The real question, perhaps, is would he ever have dared return to the US, and how long would he have lived if he had?
Suffice it to say that not only did this never happen but it could not have happened since Americans, whatever their political stripe, have a rugged sense of their own national interest, even if they disagree among themselves as to how this should be pursued.
Can the same be said for Taiwan? Apparently not.
Amid all the outrage over Chiang Pin-kun's (
During Chen's first term there were very frequent trips to China by KMT apparatchiks and lawmakers. Chinese academics -- many of whom double as security personnel, by the way -- were quite frank about the message these visits were supposed to convey: Namely that Beijing should ignore Chen, thereby reducing him to a lame duck, and help the KMT back into power, after which serious negotiations could be opened. When Taiwan's public got wind of these dubious dealings, the reaction was to lose trust in the KMT, and this lack of trust cost the pan-blue ticket the election in March last year.
Were the KMT capable of introspection, it would realize this and understand that its way back into the good graces of the Taiwanese electorate should be to take a principled stand on the issue of Taiwan's status and China's threats. Instead, perhaps as a result of the DPP's inept legislative election campaign last autumn, which gave the false impression that KMT ideology still had value in Taiwan's electoral market, the KMT has continued to pursue narrowly defined party interests -- recovering power at any cost -- with the abetment of Beijing, to the detriment of broadly defined national ones: national sovereignty, dignity and self-determination.
Given the recent passage of Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law, Chiang's trip was outrageous. Coming as it did on the heels of last Saturday's massive protests, it was a slap in the face for any Taiwanese of any political color who wants to maintain those liberties that China seeks to crush. But note that this is not anything new, it is simply a continuation of post-2000 KMT practice.
The question that has to be answered now is the degree to which the KMT's behavior is criminal. Any right-thinking person knows it to be contemptible. But is it illegal?
Certainly China's 10-point agreement seems to be in violation of the law, as Mainland Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-san (
And is the KMT itself a subversive organization in collusion with an enemy? It is about time that the highest security organs of the state launched a thorough investigation. The KMT has obviously gone too far; we need to know just how far that is.
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