It was no surprise that the US State Department should declare its opposition to the announcement by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) that he is pushing for a referendum on the question of whether Taiwan should make a bid for UN membership under the name of "Taiwan."
Nevertheless, if the US were able to obtain a deeper understanding of the underlying meaning of the proposed referendum bid, it would see that there are no grounds for its opposition.
First, if the US is opposed to using the name "Taiwan" for a UN membership bid, then it is overreacting because this has nothing to do with changing the nation's title.
It is worth noting that among the more than 190 UN member states, more than 80 applied for UN membership using a name other than their official national title. Thus, it is clear that using the name "Taiwan" to apply for UN membership has nothing to do with changing the country's national title.
Second, if the reason for US opposition is that it opposes Taiwanese membership in the UN, that would be totally unreasonable.
Since 1993, Taiwan has made continued efforts to join the UN, so this aspiration is not something new.
The US has never given its support for UN membership for Taiwan, and there is no need to change that stance into one of outspoken opposition.
Third, if the US' opposition stems from concern over Taiwan holding a national referendum, there is even less ground for concern from that standpoint.
Referendums are an important link in Taiwan's democratization process. In addition, the threshold for initiating and approving a referendum is very high, which means that the result of such a referendum would be a product of careful public choice.
The US should not show such a lack of confidence in Taiwan's democracy and public opinion. It is not difficult to see that Washington's opposition is a result of China's reaction to Chen's announcement and pressure on Washington.
Officials in Beijing have found that the shortest way to Taipei is through Washington.
US response to Chinese pressure on Taiwan shows that Washington has walked straight into an elaborate Chinese trap.
Clearly, the only result of Washington helping Beijing put pressure on Taiwan will be a deterioration of Taiwan-US relations that leaves Beijing the sole victor.
Several opinion polls conducted by Taiwan Thinktank have showed that Taiwanese have less positive feelings for the US than they have for Japan, and that this is a growing trend possibly connected to Washington's negative attitude toward Taiwan on a series of issues such as referendums and the writing of a new constitution.
Washington must wake up to the reality that the US is losing the support and friendship of Taiwanese.
In the end will have face an even more cruel question: Who lost Taiwan?
Lo Chih-cheng is the director of the department of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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