Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (
I am unfortunately preparing myself psychologically for the possibility that Hsieh might come out with other "noes" or "withouts" in the future.
During the DPP's primary debates, when asked whether he would make a promise similar to Chen's to the US, Hsieh stressed that the US is more concerned with sincerity.
Hsieh said that if he says he won't, then he won't, because one can't say one will not do something and then do it.
He said that he would not promise the US anything, because the results of democracy cannot be controlled.
But Hsieh has already said, or promised, that a referendum on independence isn't necessary. This will become an important standard by which the US judges Hsieh's sincerity in the future.
I am concerned that if our leaders are not careful and don't take all factors into account when making promises to the US, then their pledges can become a curse for foreign relations and domestic political reform.
Who decides what defines an "independence referendum" exactly?
The past seven years have proven that every time Taiwan tries to carry out any domestic or foreign reform or works to normalize itself, Washington almost always looks at this kind of action in the broader scope of whether or not Taiwan might violate the "four noes, one without" promise. Sometimes this even leads the US to oppose the reforms. Taiwan has clearly given the US a yardstick with which to set standards for, or even with which to punish, Taiwan.
Even more worrying is that as officials in Beijing push the "one China" fantasy on the international community, Hsieh believes that the "one China" principle is enshrined in the Constitution, while also saying that an independence referendum isn't necessary. As a result, under Hsieh, it would be even harder for Taiwan to shake off the "one China" curse.
Hsieh believes that Taiwan already has de facto statehood. But in the de jure sense, the "one China" framework of the Constitution prevents Taiwan from being a state and even makes it a part of China.
Even though Hsieh advocates changing the irrational "one China" framework, regardless of whether he tries to change it by amending the Constitution or creating a new constitution, either would eventually have to be voted on in a referendum.
The problem is that if China sees a referendum to join the UN under the name "Taiwan" as a disguised independence referendum and the US keeps warning that such a referendum would violate Chen's promise not to change the national title, how could one expect China and the US not to say that trying to take "one China" out of the Constitution wasn't an independence referendum?
If the US did in fact say that the national referendum for such an amendment was an independence referendum, would Hsieh respect his promise to the Taiwanese people and continue to push for the amendment?
Or would he abide by his promise to the US not to push for an independence referendum?
We hope Hsieh will chose to honor his promise to Taiwanese people first and foremost.
Lo Chih-cheng is director of Soochow University's Department of Political Science.
Translated by Marc Langer
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused