Enough people, more than 100,000, have now signed the petition for the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) referendum proposal which calls for a return to the UN under a "practical" title. Compared with the threatening words with which it reacted to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum proposal on joining the UN as a new member, China has been remarkably cool about the KMT's proposal. It has only criticized the party for dancing along with the pan-green camp, and made an indirect remark about how this damaged the friendly relations between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Why is China so indifferent to this proposal?
On the surface, the KMT's referendum proposal is simple. While following the party's policy of the "New three noes" -- no opposing Taiwanese autonomy, no going against public opinion, and no trying to compete with the DPP proposal -- the party made sure that "Taiwan" is one of the names under which the nation could return to the UN, in order to win the support of the pan-green voters.
Adding pan-blue voter support by using the name the "Republic of China" (ROC) and swing voter support by using "other names that are dignified and will help meet with success" is a good idea. The referendum will easily meet the threshold of a turnout of more than 50 percent, and it might even win the support of the absolute majority of the voters.
But the designers of the KMT's referendum proposal should get the facts straight. Deep-green voters won't support using the name "ROC," and deep-blue voters are wary of the name "Taiwan." Hence, the proposal is mainly aimed at swing voters who are fine with maintaining the "status quo."
The problem is that swing voters who are for maintaining the "status quo" can be divided into two groups: light-green voters who lean towards the name "Taiwan," and light-blue who sympathize with the name "ROC." The former might not support using ROC, while the latter do not necessarily support using "Taiwan." If we analyze the opinion polls perhaps the referendum proposal does not actually reflect the position of the moderate voters.
The designers of the question in the referendum know that if the moderate voters do not have a clear position, there might not be a majority voting equilibrium.
The worst possible outcome would be if neither the KMT's nor the DPP's proposal passed. Then China would have a new excuse to continue its attempts to annex Taiwan using UN resolution 2758 and its "Anti-Secession" Law.
If the KMT proposal fails, and the DPP proposal passes, the KMT strategy of confusing the people will have failed, and Taiwanese sovereignty will be reinforced.
If the KMT proposal passes, and the DPP does not, that would mean that the KMT strategy to confuse will have succeeded. It will also mean that most people agree with maintaining the "status quo," and that the combination of voters sympathizing with China or identifying with the ROC are in the majority.
Lastly, if both proposals pass, then no matter how much the two sides disagree on the interpretation, Taiwanese sovereignty is standing strong.
Hence, the most important issue in this case is whether the referendum proposal for applying for new UN membership will pass. As the moderate voters don't have a clear position on the issue, the proposal about returning to the UN is not a real subject for discussion. Beijing has understood this very well, and that's why they reacted so harshly to the former proposal, and only had some strategic criticism of the latter.
Huang Yu-lin is a former member of the Cabinet's Referendum Review Committee.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations