Despite heavy external pressure and attempts by local pro-China groups to create problems, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has decided to abolish the National Unification Council (NUC) and the unification guidelines.
When Chen received Republican Representative Robert Simmons of Connecticut, he said the council was "an absurd product of an absurd era" and that it violates the spirit of democracy.
Since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has already modified its stance by saying that Taiwanese independence is one of the public's options, it is only sensible that the council and the guidelines be abolished.
At that meeting, Chen also said that the "1992 consensus" was a lie.
He said that over the past few years, Taiwan's opposition parties, China and the US have again and again demanded the acceptance of the "1992 consensus." Now former Mainland Affairs Council chairman and KMT Legislator Su Chi (
Chen also accused the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party of cheating the world on the matter. When KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou, (
Chen's courage in pushing for the abolition of the council and the guidelines is significant.
The change of power in 2000 was an excellent opportunity for Taiwan to become a normal country.
But the new government only made tiny steps in this direction due to restrictions imposed by the "four noes" and the "1992 consensus."
Binding itself hand and foot to these ideas, the government also adopted the policy of opening up Chinese trade, which resulted in an outflow of capital, technology and skills.
So, on the one hand, Taiwan has been prepared to strike compromises and humiliate itself, and on the other it has opened the door and welcomed the bandits inside.
It is a situation that has proved difficult to undo.
The tragic thing is that Taiwanese know they have been wronged, but are unable to put things right.
Taiwan's promise to abide by the "four noes" was never going to convince China to abandon the threat to invade. Instead, there was a rapid increase in the number of missiles pointed in this direction and the passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law.
Since China does not intend to give up the option of military action, there is no need to stick to any pledge.
Chen's efforts to abolish the council and guidelines does not violate the "four noes" pledge anyway. He is only terminating the operation of a government agency and a doctrine that has not been convened or invoked in six years.
As Chen's proposal only requires an administrative procedure, how is it going to aggravate cross-strait tensions?
The reason cross-strait relations have not improved is because China does not want to renounce force, nor is it willing to treat Taiwan on an equal footing. Taiwan receives no goodwill from across the Strait.
It is China that is attempting to alter the cross-strait status quo and blame Taiwan for escalating cross-strait tensions.
There is now a clear consensus in Taiwan that only Taiwanese may determine the nation's future. The KMT, whose stated goal is unification, has also recently shifted its stance. However, the guidelines see unification as the only option.
Doing away with a government agency and its ossified doctrine of inferiority is not only the best way of asserting our self-belief, but is also a reflection of mainstream opinion.
That is to say, no one has the right to determine Taiwan's future other than Taiwanese themselves.
When Taiwanese and Chinese representatives met in Hong Kong in 1992, the latter insisted on the "one China" principle, while the KMT negotiators demanded that each side be allowed to make its own interpretation of the principle.
No consensus was reached. Beijing's rejection of any consensus has now been verified by Su, who admits to having made the whole thing up. The consensus was therefore a scam orchestrated by the KMT.
The DPP has spent six years looking for new directions for the nation's future. It has now come to its senses, and has chosen to return to the path of Taiwanese consciousness.
It must be stated that Chen has faced tremendous pressure from the US over this development. He certainly needs to resolve tensions with the US and improve communication with Washington.
But abolishing the council and guidelines is the correct move, and having decided to do so Chen must hold firm.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON AND DANIEL CHENG
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