Just what exactly was the action taken by the Taiwan government toward the National Unification Guidelines and National Unification Council (NUC)? There has been some confusion and debate over the past week. Without question, the official wording used by the government and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was that the guidelines had "ceased to be applied" and that the NUC had "ceased to operate." However, in the media and even among the general public, whether deliberate or unintentional, the action taken has often been simply referred to as "abolished." That this seemingly innocent discrepancy in reference was sufficient to invite the concern of the US government goes to show how the unification-independence issue strikes a raw nerve in many.
Whatever differences may exist between "abolished" and "ceased to operate and apply," they are at most conceptual. Some say that if the guidelines and NUC have been abolished, they no longer exist, and therefore unification is no longer an option for Taiwan. It should be pointed out that neither the NUC nor the guidelines are tangible. Until recently, their existence has supposedly not been in doubt. However, has this existence helped Taiwan to move any closer to unification? The answer is of course not.
Regardless of whether Taiwan has moved further away from or closer to unification over the past years, that movement had nothing to do with the guidelines or the NUC. Instead, the popular will of the people of Taiwan remains almost the sole determinant. As for what decides the direction of movement of the popular will, many other factors play a part. These range from cultural and political identification, to the rapid economic exodus of Taiwanese businesses to China, and from the economic development of China, to ethnic rivalry between Taiwanese and Mainlanders in Taiwan, among others.
Even if the guidelines and NUC have genuinely been "abolished," unification will remain an option -- so long as the Taiwanese want to keep it an option. Now that the NUC and guidelines have been confirmed as continuing to exist -- except that they now cease to apply and cease to operate (since when have they ever operated or applied anyway, some may ask) -- does that make unification any more plausible than before when they were erroneously considered to have been "abolished?" Better still, before and after they ceased to apply and operate, was there any difference in terms of the likelihood of Taiwan unifying with China? The answers to these questions are only too obvious.
Some commentators have reasoned that the US government adamantly insists that the latter is the case because it wishes to preserve the "status quo". The exact nature of the precious "status quo" being safeguarded is also the subject of multiple interpretations and debates. Those with enough common sense would say Taiwan meets the requirements for independent statehood, so it is an independent sovereign country. Others insist that Taiwan is and has always been part of China. Still, if Taiwan is currently neither independent nor part of China, then is it moving closer to independence or unification? It would appear that even reaching a consensus on what the "status quo" is seems impossible, never mind unanimous answers to these questions.
At the end of the day, whoever is elected to the presidency in 2008 will have to be a lot more decisive regarding unification or independence. The way things look at the moment, as soon as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
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