In his Lunar New Year's address, President Chen Shui-bian (
However, some US officials do not back Chen's suggestions and have even poured cold water on them. Most Taiwanese are disappointed and frustrated with the US reaction and are now questioning why the US is so willing to please Beijing at the expense of its own founding spirit and democratic principles.
Following Chen's Lunar New Year's speech, some US officials sought to collude with the nation's pro-China media outlets and exaggerate the consequences of Chen's remarks, insinuating that US President George W. Bush was disgruntled with the contents of Chen's address. In addition, they implied that if Chen refuses to reiterate the the pledges from his 2000 and 2004 inaugural addresses, then Bush will openly reprimand Chen when he next meets Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Although we should not fear China-leaning US officials and their prejudices against Taiwan, it is worrying that the US government's unfair criticism of Chen's New Year address is a blatant violation of democratic principles. When commenting on the address, the US State Department reiterated that the US' Taiwan policy adheres to the "one China" principle and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), and abides by the three US-China Communiques. The TRA is the only one of these that is concerned with ensuring Taiwan's security and interests. The others -- the "one China" policy and the three communiques -- take care of China's immediate interests. In other words, there is a serious imbalance between US-Taiwan relations and US-China relations. It is most regrettable, in the light of this imbalance, that deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli could misconstrue Chen's desire to enter the UN under the name Taiwan as a unilateral change to the status quo. This unquestionably denies Taiwan its sovereignty, effectively shuts Taiwan out of the international community and leaves us in a political no man's land.
Sean McCormack, spokesman for the US State Department, has said that the US supports dialogue between China and Taiwan to allow the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve the issue. This is simply ridiculous. Taiwan is an independent country, completely separate from China: Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China and the two are completely different. How can one ask the people of Taiwan to negotiate with the people of China and reach a mutually acceptable solution?
The practical realities of the situation are that Taiwan has a population of 23 million to China's 1.3 billion. Surely asking these two sides to enter into negotiations is the same as asking the people of Taiwan to capitulate. What would have happened if the international community had insisted the US negotiate for a mutually acceptable solution with the people of Britain to bring an end to their war of independence? If that had happened, would the US be an independent country today?
As Chen said in Tainan several days ago, Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, and is not to be shared with the 1.3 billion people in China. The goal of cross-strait dialogue should be to promote regional stability and peace and to avoid war, not to force the Taiwanese to capitulate. Taiwan's future should be decided by its people and its right to self-governance ought to be respected by the international community.
Chen talked of scrapping the National Unification Council and the unification guidelines, of joining the UN as Taiwan and of drafting a new Constitution in order to give Taiwan something to aspire to. If Taiwan continues along this road it will continue to have democracy, freedom and human rights, in the same spirit in which the US pursued independence over 200 years ago. The US should be pleased to see this happening and stand together with the Taiwanese, not throw us to the lions and put an end to the freedom we now enjoy.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Paul Cooper
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS