Last week, the government rejected Beijing's announcement that the Olympic torch would travel from Taiwan to Hong Kong on the grounds that the proposed route belittles Taiwan's sovereignty. This move will likely stoke debate on Taiwan's future.
Although 60 percent of Taiwanese want independence, many also hope for stable cross-strait relations and agree to the national title Republic of China (ROC) to maintain the status quo. Some also favor eventual unification through democratic means. Following this logic, the pan-blue camp recognizes the "agreement" reached in 1992 that each side of the Taiwan Strait should have its own interpretation of "one China" (
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), however, rejects the view that each side of the Taiwan Strait has its own interpretation of "one China" to protect Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy.
Both political camps seek to protect Taiwan's democratic development. The difference is that the pan-blue camp is more China-leaning, while the pan-green camp wants to steer clear of China and replace cross-strait relations with international relations.
As the two camps each have about 50 percent of the public's support for their respective China policies, a national consensus can only be achieved if they find common ground among their differences. If they don't, it will become impossible to normalize Taiwan's national status and gain international recognition.
Most countries recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC) and adhere to a "one China" policy. Together with China's insistence on annexing Taiwan under its "one country, two systems" model, the policy attempts to suppress Taiwan's diplomatic space internationally. The passing of China's "Anti-Secession Law" and the 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan leave no room for any individual interpretation of the definition of "one China."Regardless of the KMT stance, "one China" means the PRC to the international community.
In addition to eliminating any possibilities for Taiwan to expand its diplomatic relations, this condition also gives current diplomatic allies a convenient reason for severing ties with Taiwan. The pan-blue camp's policy will therefore only result in further shrinking Taiwan's diplomatic space.
Not only will Taiwan be unable to negotiate democratic unification with China on an equal footing, but it will end up being forced to accept China's "one country, two systems" model, abandoning our precious democratic lifestyle.
If the DPP wants a stronger consensus on the issue of national identity, it must use the ideas of democratic coexistence and solidarity to mobilize voters and point out that China's wish to urgently annex Taiwan means that Taiwan's democracy can only be protected with a united citizenry. This is the only way to build an existence of shared prosperity.
Furthermore, if the opposition wants to achieve their goal of democratic unification, they must put aside a China policy built on an individual interpretation of "one China." Independence and internationally accepted sovereignty is the only solution to discussing unification on equal terms with China.
The DPP's willingness to accept the pan-blue camp's different interpretation of Taiwan's history, differing views of cross-strait developments to promote ethnic harmony and national unity, and the goal of future democratic unification with China means that the two sides must find common ground and unite toward the outside world to gain international recognition of Taiwan, protect its sovereignty, guarantee our democracy and strengthen our bargaining chips.
Michael Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
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