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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95