Prior to the commemoration of the 228 Incident, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) announced that the the National Unification Guidelines will cease to apply and that the National Unification Council (NUC) would cease to function. However, some alarmist pro-unification media outlets, politicians and other people in Taiwan launched a series of attacks on Chen and against independence without consideration for the positive results of Chen's decision.
First, the most important result of doing away with the NUC and its guidelines is that it has forced the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to acknowledge that independence can be an option for Taiwan's future. Over the decades, the KMT has vilified independence to the point where it has become tantamount to war, leaving no room for rational debate.
The KMT, which has been violating the principle of self-determination, has also been forced to respond to the pressure brought by the debate over the council and its guidelines to acknowledge for the first time that the people of Taiwan have the right to choose independence.
This is a triumph for Taiwanese democracy.
Second, Chen has created an opportunity to make the US fully understand Taiwan's situation and needs. Although the US openly opposed the passage of China's "Anti-Secession" Law last year, it has not taken any substantive action to prevent the cross-strait "status quo" from tilting in China's favor, but has sat idly by as Beijing has developed its carrot-and-stick approach in dealing with Taiwan.
At least Chen's decision to scrap the NUC and its guidelines has made the US begin to look at Taiwan's difficulties in maintaining the "status quo."
Although the US was not very understanding of Chen's intentions at first, statements by the State Department indicate that Washington is finally beginning to understand Chen's decision.
Third, the incident has made Taiwanese understand the difference between the green and blue camps' cross-strait and diplomatic policies. The pan-blues' statements about the abolition of the NUC and its guidelines have all along been built on the premise that, so long as Taipei acts like a good boy, Beijing and Washington will reciprocate with a lollipop.
The pan-green camp, on the contrary, believes that absolute obedience will continue to blur one's own viewpoint and damage one's own interests. In the case of the NUC and its guidelines, reality shows that if we dare fight for our interests and engage in pragmatic negotiations, we will be able to achieve a lot more. There is no need to restrict or confine ourselves.
If China and the US feel they can take advantage of Taiwan, will it be possible for the nation to protect its own interests?
We certainly should not feel complacent due to the abolition of the NUC, for there are indications that before the matter was finalized, Washington had put tremendous pressure on Taipei.
Domestically, we have to look forward to the opposition parties initiating a recall of Chen, obstructing the operation of the legislature and mobilizing supporters to demonstrate in the streets against Chen.
How to intelligently resolve repeated domestic and international problems and protect national interests requires cautious action by the government and timely support from the public.
Leou Chia-feng is a doctoral candidate in the department of politics and international studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with