A few weeks ago we castigated the French government over its eagerness to facilitate the sale of advanced weapons to the tyranny across the Taiwan Strait. A number of people took issue with us, claiming that it was unfair to denigrate the entire French nation on the basis of its arms-sales policy. The only response we need make to that is to point out that it is our lives -- the lives of people in Taiwan -- which are being deliberately endangered by the French government, and frankly we don't find this very amusing. Our French critics might consider how they would feel were Taiwan to make money out of selling weapons and explosives to Islamic terrorists in France.
But just when you think French behavior cannot get any more contemptible, it plunges to a new low. With much of the rest of the world appalled by China's "Anti-Secession" Law and its avowed intention to oppose Taiwanese self-determination using force, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has given his blessing to this instrument of state terror and intimidation. "The Anti-Secession Law," he said, "is completely compatible with the position of France." Very probably, though it would take a proctologist to locate exactly where that position is.
When we suggested that the government take punitive measures against French institutions, businesses and expatriates in Taiwan to show its deep displeasure, our critics claimed that a nation's citizens cannot be held accountable for the actions of their government. With some nations that is certainly true. Nobody claims that the luckless denizens of Myanmar can be held responsible for the doings of the junta there. But France was -- the last we heard -- a democracy. If democracy works, then the French government is a representation of the will of French people, and as such the people are accountable. Those who find their government's policy unpalatable should not be protesting their innocence to this newspaper but doing their damnedest -- through the constitutional means at their disposal -- to change that policy or change the government. Democratic accountability works in two directions.
Apply this principle to Taiwan, however, and the prospects are rather bleak. On Thursday, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), made a fire-and-brimstone speech castigating opposition party leaders' upcoming trips to China as the wrong action in the wrong place at the wrong time. The principal drawback of such visits is that they give the international community the impression that Taiwan does not object to the Anti-Secession Law. The ferocity of Lee's words was immediately blunted, however, by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who gave his conditional blessing to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) trip, after his government had spent the last three weeks condemning it. This about-face is typical of the Chen government -- both of its vacillating nature and its execrable timing. But in the end the problem goes back to democratic accountability. Chen is not sure what he wants because the Taiwanese are not sure what they want.
The dominant personality trait among Taiwanese is opportunism. For the last three centuries, bettering the lot of oneself and one's family usually meant some kind of messy compromise with unaccountable and alien power holders. The moral has always been to seek advantage where one can, and don't pay too much attention to principle. And that, unfortunately, is the way the trips to China are viewed. The overwhelming sentiment is that Lien could bring something back for us; if so, why not let him try? Given such opportunism, Chen is in no position to be doctrinaire. His wishy-washiness simply reflects the wishy-washiness of his constituents. Sadly, this is the last quality one needs in standing up to China.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS