When US President George W. Bush made a speech on Nov. 15 in Kyoto, Japan, it may have been the first time that a sitting US president formally endorsed Taiwan's democracy. But the real surprise came when he used the phrase: "controlling their own lives and their future."
There is no doubt that the Taiwanese people are controlling their own lives now. However, to be the masters of their own future, the Taiwanese people have to know that Taiwan's democratization will continue uninterrupted.
That would translate into formal sovereignty. Formal sovereignty remains the only way to guarantee Taiwan's democracy in the face of China's territorial ambitions.
Bush also cited the US "belief that there should be no unilateral attempts to change the status quo by either side," as if the Taiwanese people should be satisfied with de facto independence.
He overlooked the fact that, without formal sovereignty, Taiwan is having a hard time defending its "status quo" as a de facto independent democracy.
China's passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law and the formation of the alliance between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) highlights why Taiwan needs formal independence.
Prior to that, the train of Taiwan's democratization had been chugging along, even with the constraint of the US "one China" policy.
But China's promulgation of the law and the advent of the KMT-CCP alliance exposed to all how vulnerable Taiwan's democracy is without formal sovereignty. Without formal sovereignty, no country in the world except the US will dare to raise its voice against China's missiles on Taiwan's behalf.
Worse, without formal sovereignty Taiwan cannot declare that China is an enemy country, though it clearly is given the "Anti-Secession" Law's ultimatum on the forceful annexation of Taiwan.
After the law was passed, instead of evacuating Taiwanese citizens from China, Taiwan's government was powerless to stop pan-blue camp leaders from flocking to Beijing to pledge their allegiance. And the government cannot prosecute them for collaborating with Taiwan's enemy.
Worse, Taiwan cannot restrain Beijing's agents -- who now masquerade as Taiwanese legislators -- from advancing China's agenda.
The turncoats who currently dominate the legislature are attempting to legitimize China's aggression, with the eventual goal of legislating the surrender of Taiwan's democracy to the despots in Beijing.
So far they have succeeded in blocking the special arms procurement bill, representing a unilateral disarmament by Taiwan in the face of a rising military threat from China. They are also trying to choke off funding for the Mainland Affairs Council.
Without formal sovereignty, Taiwan cannot curb the excesses of the pro-China media in Taiwan, despite their ongoing disinformation campaigns.
Without formal sovereignty, the Taiwanese people have lost much of their psychological defense against the nation's most belligerent enemy. Without such sovereignty, Taiwan's democracy is always just one presidential election away from extinction.
Conversely, formal sovereignty would have many positive effects.
For one thing, the perennial war to decide Taiwan's fate -- which is being fought primarily in Taiwan's political arena and between the Taiwanese people on one side and Beijing's cohorts in Taiwan on the other -- would be over. Taiwan's democracy would have emerged the victor.
The nation would have constructed a new and complete constitution to provide its democracy with a solid foundation. Taiwan's internal polarization would have ceased, making possible a loyal opposition.
Meanwhile, the politics of checks and balances would replace that of hate and animosity. Taiwan would embark on a program to fortify its military defense with an eye to deter any potential threat to its hard-earned democracy.
Taiwan would be able to enter into formal military alliances with the US and Japan, strengthening its security.
Taiwan would become a beacon of democracy and an anchor for the chain of East Asia's free societies.
China would have no choice but to make peace with Taiwan, to assure the US and the rest of the world that its "peaceful rise" is sincere, rather than just a catchphrase invented to mollify its neighbors. This would be in China's interests, by guaranteeing its eventual ascent to the status of an economic superpower.
If Bush truly valued Taiwan's democracy and recognized its role in maintaining stability in the region, he would have no alternative but to support Taiwan's formal sovereignty -- and so would the rest of the world.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US