Last weekend, I attended the annual meeting of the Global Alliance for Democracy and Peace (GADP) in Los Angeles at the alliance's invitation and delivered a speech there. This Chinese group has 98 branches worldwide, and the meeting drew over 300 participants, including people from the pan-blue and pan-green camps. My topic was: "Democracy is the greatest common denominator between the two sides."
I pointed out that although Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (
Besides, even if China turns into a democracy, it will not take up Sun's Three Principles of the People as the basis on which the nation is built, for Sun maintained that socialism was embodied in the Principle of Livelihood, one of the tenets of his Three Principles of the People. We have all witnessed the disaster wrought by socialism on mankind, and Sun's attempts to ally himself with Russia and the communists show the pronounced influence of communist thinking.
Since democracy is the greatest common denominator, the resolution of cross-strait disagreements lies in the termination of the CCP's authoritarian rule. Only when China enjoys democracy can the Strait remain peaceful. This is also the only way that Taiwan's goal of becoming a normal country can be realized completely.
Today, many Taiwanese people are demanding a new constitution, and whether or not this document institutes a new national title, flag and national anthem, the right to such changes is a basic right of a democratic country. When former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
After my speech, however, the GADP's first president, Wu Ho-i (
But I simply responded that if a former chairman cannot be criticized, then former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (
Wu has resided in the US for many years. In his reliance on blocking the free flow of thinking by depriving people of a chance to speak, rather than trying to convince them through reasoned argument, we can clearly see the vicious consequence of the slavish mentality fostered by the KMT.
Many of the pan-blue camp's supporters are furious whenever they talk about Taiwan independence. This issue does not exist, however, because the ROC has always been an independent country. It has never belonged to the People's Republic of China.
The main question is whether the country should create a new constitution and change its name. And the only reason that this issue has arisen is that most countries in the world do not recognize the name ROC.
Indeed, when Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) visited Beijing, they did not dare mention the name "ROC." Lien could not admit he was a former ROC vice president, while Soong could not boast of being a former governor of Taiwan Province. So neither man is safeguarding the ROC. One might question the meaning of safeguarding a country that neither man dares to recognize.
Although the pan-blue camp's supporters have tried to block a name change, they are opposed by the international community. All US media refer to this country as "Taiwan;" none uses the name "ROC." This suggests that foreigners have already rectified the country's name, and whatever the sentiments of Chiang Kai-shek's supporters, they cannot change the Taiwanese people's rectification of Taiwan's name.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in New York.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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