After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
Their sycophancy has opened the eyes of the Taiwanese people to the ugliness of Lien and Soong's characters, but also to the feudal style of China's government in acquiring vassals. None of this is compatible with modern democracy.
Now that Lien and Soong have returned, it is time to assess the results of their betrayal of Taiwan's interests. First and foremost, as chairmen of opposition parties, their ability to sell out Taiwan's sovereignty is limited.
China might seem to have won some slight advantage at the level of political rhetoric, using Lien and Soong as part of their "united front" strategy to give credibility to the "one China" fantasy. But even if Lien and Soong proclaim China's greatness like loyal retainers, they cannot frighten Taiwan.
The cross-strait question has two aspects.
The first is the political aspect, which at its heart is about sovereignty.
The second is the actual situation and what can be done about it.
On the political front, Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Lien knew what he was in for, and tossed the whole idea of the Republic of China into the Taiwan Strait before he even arrived. Soong wanted to be tough, but in the end -- under pressure from various fronts -- he also swallowed his words.
Hu was tough, and Lien and Soong came out looking weak. But then, those who capitulate cannot dictate terms, and must simply wait on those to whom they have capitulated.
When Hu insisted that the basis of the cross-strait issue would be based on the "1992 consensus," neither Lien nor Soong dared to say anything. Lien's "news release" spoke of the "1992 consensus" and Soong's statement mentioned the "two sides of the strait, one China" idea, but these are just footnotes to Hu's statement.
As the issue of sovereignty has already been decided by Hu, any point in Lien's five-point communique or Soong's six-point agreement, which disagrees with Hu's statement, will necessarily be overruled.
As for the practical aspects of the situation, only the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration, which is invested with public power, can achieve anything.
Hu is clearly delighted that Lien and Soong have tried to sell out Taiwan. But apart from selling themselves, what else can Lien and Soong do?
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
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