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 This is the case with his proposal to abolish the National Unification Council and unification guidelines -- both outdated tokens that exist solely as stumps to prop up the farcical dream that "unification" was the sacred destiny of Taiwan.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."
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