Following President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Jan. 1 New Year's speech, in which he proposed the "active management, effective opening" policy as a replacement for the "active opening, effective management" policy that was tantamount to a complete opening toward China, the president has now proposed some ideas that are certain to stimulate Taiwan consciousness. When expressing his vision for the new year during his Lunar New Year address, Chen stressed that he would grow even stronger in his insistence that Taiwan follow its own path and that he would give serious consideration to scrapping the National Unification Council and the national unification guidelines. He also said that, based on concern for Taiwan's national dignity and international status, the nation should not place any limitations on itself, and earnest consideration should be given to whether Taiwan should apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan."
The vision and bold decisiveness displayed by Chen over this period, as well as his identification with and persistence in placing Taiwan first, has encouraged us to draw some preliminary conclusions: The steps that were taken over the last month amount to more than the five years that went before it. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has made localization its platform, and although its minority position in the legislature and the impact of the international situation since the party's accession to power in 2000 may not have caused it to fully abandon its ultimate goals, it has been forced to take a substantial detour. Unfortunately, this road was signposted with the "five noes," "active opening" and "reconciliation and coexistence," and was totally the wrong path for the party to follow.
Over the past five years, the DPP's attempts to rely on the "five noes" and the "active opening" policy when dealing with China and "reconciliation" and "coexistence" when dealing with the pan-blue camp have failed to produce any positive response. The result has instead hurt Taiwan's national security interests and threatened Taiwan consciousness. In other words, while the government looked for reconciliation with the pan-blue camp, the result was that when offered a slice, the pan-blues took the whole cake. The situation deteriorated and the opposition continued its obstruction of the arms procurement bill and the approval of the nominations to the Control Yuan. Nor did the "active opening" policy bring any benefits or developments to cross-strait trade. Instead, Taiwan began to lean toward China with the result that manpower, technology and capital flowed across the Taiwan Strait in ever increasing volumes, causing irreparable damage to Taiwan's economy. Although the "five noes" promise sacrificed the nation's status and dignity, it was predicated on China not using armed force against Taiwan and the hope that humiliation could buy security. Five years on, however, the situation is the direct opposite. China has not shown any self-restraint, continuing to deploy missiles along its coast opposite Taiwan and passing an "Anti-Secession" Law, proving itself to be both a belligerent and invasive power. This means that the premises on which the "five noes" were based no longer exist, and this naturally also means that the promise is no longer valid.
China's unwillingness to give up the option of using military force in the settlement of the Taiwan issue and its suppression of Taiwan in the international arena runs counter to humanist values. China even continues to obstruct Taiwan's attempts to become an observer at the WHO which would help it guarantee the well-being of the people of Taiwan. At a recent international conference on avian influenza in Beijing, China blocked Taiwan's representative from participating, sending a clear message to the people of Taiwan that they should not harbor any hope for support from China, a country totally devoid of any humanist values. Rather than continuing to humiliate itself and be afraid of using the name "Taiwan" to gain access to international organizations, the name Taiwan should be used openly and in a straightforward manner. Doing so will sooner or later bear fruit.
Although the proposition of the "five noes" was a necessary evil in 2000, it was also a humiliation that the government has been unable to rid itself of, becoming a curse limiting the development of Taiwan. Unless the "five noes" are abandoned, Taiwan will not succeed. Adding to this the fact that China's behavior over the past five years does not comply with the premises for the "five noes" promise, this may provide the best opportunity to throw off these shackles.
There is of course a long way to go before we can form a normal state using the name Taiwan. The goal is there, but a strategy is also required. The goal must never be allowed to change, but the application of strategy requires high-level political intelligence. Since Chen has taken a correct first step, the government must use its will power and a flexible strategy to first build domestic consensus and then gradually work on realizing the ultimate goal.
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