President Chen Shui-bian's (
Washington has reminded Chen of his pledges several times in the six years since the beginning of his first term as Taiwan's president. But the latest debacle regarding the National Unification Council (NUC) and the National Unification Guidelines brought up Chen's pledges in the most direct manner yet.
The US State Department displayed a sense of urgency that was not commensurate with the situation. For one thing, after six years, Chen's original vow is now synonymous with Chen's promise to avoid any democratic process leading to formal sovereignty. What has been papered over is whether or not Chen has the authority to make those promises in the first place.
The five parts of the pledge include no declaration of formal independence, no name change for the nation, no push for the inclusion of the so-called "state-to-state" description of cross-strait affairs in the Constitution, no promotion of referendums on the issue of independence or unification and not causing problems by abolishing the NUC or the guidelines for national unification.
Clearly, neither a declaration of formal independence nor a name change for the nation falls within the realm of powers that the Taiwanese people have bestowed on their president. The president might be called upon to make statements on those subjects, but he or she doesn't have the power to make any assurances on blocking such proposals.
To promise personally not to push for the inclusion of the so-called "state-to-state" description in the Constitution and not promote a referendum on the issue of independence or unification is within Chen's ordinary rights -- as would be the case with any Taiwanese citizen. But these promises can't be imposed on others in his administration.
Instead, should the realization of those two items be deemed vital to national security, Chen would be shirking his obligation by opposing them.
The NUC was a defunct institution originally created through executive order by the Chinese Nationalist Party during the party-state era. The National Unification Guidelines were based on the premise that Taiwan would eventually be united with China, a notion harking back to Taiwan's undemocratic past.
To keep either of those two relics, Chen needs a mandate that can only be derived from a referendum on whether or not people of Taiwan prefer "unification" as the only option for Taiwan's eventual status. Therefore, their "ceasing to function or apply" as declared a few weeks ago by Chen was no more than an admission that his government doesn't have the authority to keep them alive.
Viewed from another angle, Chen's pledge is part of the evolution in the platform for dialogue between Washington and Taipei.
Prior to former president Lee Teng-hui's (
That all changed in 1996 when Lee became the first popularly elected president in Taiwan's history. The US State Department experienced for the first time in Taiwan the difficulty of criticizing a democratically elected head of state for promoting democracy. In 2000, Chen, elected with less than a plurality, had to acquiesce to US demands by putting anti-democratic shackles on himself, in the form of the "four noes and one not" pledge.
In 2004, Chen won with a plurality, albeit by only a slim 30,000-vote margin, and thus felt no obligation to repeat the pledge. But neither did he feel secure enough to publicly rescind his promises.
Regardless, the pledge lacks legitimacy without a blessing from the Taiwanese people. The question is, at what point will the Taiwanese public wake up to this reality and call both Washington and Beijing's bluff?
If they did, that would mark the beginning of the final stages of the emancipation of the Taiwanese people through the democratic process.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath