Both during his visit to the US and in his meeting with President Chen Shui-bian (
If we agree that there is a Taiwan Strait crisis, then the external factors are Beijing's deployment of missiles threatening Taiwan and its wish to use its "one China" strategy to annex Taiwan. An internal factor is pro-unification propaganda in China-friendly media preventing the Taiwanese people from gaining an understanding of the nature of the regime in Beijing.
Two recent opinion polls have offered surprising results. In one poll, conducted by the Institute for National Policy Research 14 percent of respondents said they agreed that the People's Republic of China was a free and democratic country, while 20 percent answered that they didn't know. Added together, this suggests that one-third of Taiwanese don't know that China is a despotic dictatorship.
Of all the countries in the world, Taiwan should not be unaware of the nature of Communist China. There are no elections there, it is ruled through violence and it has deployed 800 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan along its eastern coast. In Taiwan with its press freedom, one-third of the population doesn't know that China is neither free nor democratic? This ignorance is preposterous.
In the other poll conducted by a media outlet after the Chen-Ma meeting, one-third of respondents said Beijing would agree to Ma's "one China, with each side having its own interpretation." This once again shows how many Taiwanese don't have a clue about the nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Anyone with a degree of political common sense knows that Beijing would never agree to Ma's "one China" interpretation, because that would mean acknowledging that there are two Chinas. China has never relaxed its interpretation of "one China," so why would it let this policy fall to pieces now?
The public's lack of understanding of China is mainly a result of pro-Chinese reporting in the pro-unification media in recent years, but, although worrying, it is understandable. Ma has joined those who lack this understanding. His statements during his US visit and his meeting with Chen were filled with wishful thinking, but he is deceiving no one but himself with his calls for "one China, with each side having its own interpretation."
Ma has also said that the KMT and the CCP have engaged in contacts over so many years that the KMT is able to get along with the CCP on any issue. I wonder if he understands the shamelessness of this statement. The reason the KMT continually lost out to the CCP and eventually had to flee to Taiwan was that it had no idea of how to deal with the CCP.
Prior to Lien's visit to China last year, he made a big issue of adhering to the non-existent "1992 consensus" and "one China, with each side having its own interpretation." While in China, however, he never even dared to mention the name "Republic of China," never mind "one China, with each side having its own interpretation." Apart from gaining a promise of two pandas during his "negotiations with the CPP," did Lien bring home anything substantive to Taiwan?
The CCP is not a dumb, cuddly panda. Anyone who wants to play word games with the CCP will be used by the party. Anyone who wants to befriend the CCP thinking that it is a sweet little panda must have the IQ of a panda.
Cao Changqing is a freelance journalist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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