President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) speech on Lunar New Year's Day has become a point of concern for the US, prompting the US State Department to issue a series of statements. However, a closer examination of Chen's words fail to reveal any groundbreaking departure from the status quo -- at least nothing substantive enough to invite the level of surprise that the US government has demonstrated.
The so-called "changes" proposed in Chen's address were at most the removal of some superficial and symbolic mechanisms left over from the days of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule. This is the case with his proposal to abolish the National Unification Council and unification guidelines -- both outdated tokens that exist solely as stumps to prop up the farcical dream that "unification" was the sacred destiny of Taiwan. One cannot help but wonder why these props should be maintained when most of the lead actors don't believe in them anymore -- at least not if they want any say in the future of Taiwan.
The truth of the matter is that the National Unification Council has not been convened once since 1999. It serves absolutely no function and a pan-blue controlled legislature slashed the council's annual budget to the ridiculously low amount of NT$1,000 (US$31). If anyone in Taiwan genuinely wishes for unification then it would have to be members of the pan-blue camp. However, not even they felt that it made sense to provide the council with more than a NT$1,000 bill each year.
The existence of the National Unification Council and unification guidelines is simply a mockery of democratic principles. It should be left to the people of Taiwan to determine the future of the country, and only the Taiwanese people can decide whether there should be unification with China. The existence of the National Unification Council and unification guidelines takes unification as a given, something that is at odds with democratic progress and development.
As for Chen talking about wanting to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" rather than the Republic of China (ROC), this is hardly an earth-shattering revelation either. It is no secret that Taiwan is unlikely to be admitted into the UN, no matter what name it uses. After all, China not only is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but it also wields strong influence over almost all UN members, most of which hold formal diplomatic relations with it and acknowledge the "one China" principle. In choosing between "ROC" and "Taiwan," it is a toss up as to which is more offensive to China, since the former claims sovereignty over China's territory and the latter conflicts with the "one China" principle. Neither is going to be acceptable, so Taiwan might as well pick one that it prefers and which also happens to faithfully reflect the political reality of an independent sovereignty.
And as for the talk about holding a referendum on a new constitution, Chen has cited this as one of his major political platforms for quite some time now. It comes as no surprise.
As Chen heads toward the end of his second term, the US is worried that he may make a major move toward independence, since he now does not have to worry about re-election. However, popular will still determines the future of Taiwan, not any one man. Chen may not need to worry about re-election, but the ruling Democratic Progressive Party does.
The real question is: Do Taiwanese crave unification? The answer is a blindingly obvious "no."
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS