The Year of the Fire Dog has kicked off on a positive note for Taiwan, thanks to the boldness and vision of President Chen Shui-bian. As a neutral observer of cross-straits relations, I agree with Chen that the timing is now appropriate to consider abolishing the National Unification Council and unification guidelines.
Why should a council exist when it serves no purpose, both in the current climate and in the foreseeable future? Ask any neutral observer of cross-straits relations and the answer is likely to be that Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) are two independent and sovereign countries.
Regardless of how deep the PRC's desire to seek reunification with Taiwan is, two facts are undeniable. Firstly, Taiwan (or as some would still term it, the Republic of China) has been governed separately from the PRC for the past 57 years.
Secondly, the issue of reunification has to be approached based on a principle of two equal entities (and not on a superior-subordinate mentality) and, ultimately, decided upon by the 23 million Taiwanese, and not by the one-sided aspirations of the Chinese government or the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
I have always taken the view that KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Thus, I was disappointed to note his comments which suggested that Chen's credibility would be questioned if he decides to scrap the council and guidelines, just because he had promised before his election and re-election that he would not abolish them.
Both the KMT (who apparently seeks to politicize an honest statement by Chen) and the US government should note that in reality, Chen's promises were based on the condition that the PRC does not pose any threat to Taiwan. I believe that even Ma and the KMT would be forced to admit that China has been threatening Taiwan (both verbally and through the build-up of missiles aimed at the island) over the past six years.
Allow me to illustrate the situation further with an analogy. A couple gets married and takes their wedding vows, promising to take care of each other forever. Some time later, they realize that circumstances have changed and a divorce is in the interests of both parties. Do we then say that the promises and vows made earlier have affected the credibility of the couple? The wedding vows, like Chen's promises, were made upon certain conditions.
While it has been reported that some Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators were not happy with Chen's announcement, it was heartening to note that several DPP heavyweights such as Vice President Annette Lu (
In my humble opinion, Taiwan is blessed and fortunate to have had Chen as its president over the past six years. He has shown himself to be a man with firm beliefs and when faced with threats and pressure, he has not compromised on his vision of making Taiwan a dignified, sovereign nation.
When he steps down from the presidency in May 2008, I am worried about the future of Taiwan.
Chen's successor as the next president (regardless of his political affiliation) should work for the interest of the 23 million citizens, and not succumb to the whims and fancies of tyrants, or international pressure.
Yet again, the destiny of the country's future lies in the hands of its 16 million or so voters. The vote should be for the man who can safeguard the nation's sovereign identity, and not merely for the more charismatic candidate.
Jason Lee Boon Hong
Singapore
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath