The "Resolution for a Normal Country" that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has announced is closely related to the development of Taiwan as a nation. In my opinion, the resolution has come at the right time and we should pay serious attention to it. There are at least four points that should be considered.
The first is the historical mission of the DPP. Taiwan has arrived at an historical watershed where it may become a normal country. A responsible party has the obligation to tell the public where the difficulties lie for Taiwan and where it wants to take the country. The DPP's resolution points out that the present situation is not normal and plots a direction for the future development of the country.
But I think that the DPP has sidestepped the fact that it has restricted its own options. It was a mistake when, in order to win political power in 2000, the DPP adopted the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future."
When the DPP acknowledged and rationalized the Republic of China (ROC) and set up its government within the ROC framework, it rendered them unable to carry out thorough reforms of the distortions and mistakes of that framework. It has already been seven years since the DPP came to power and the difficulties of governing and the problems of the country are all related to the idea of the ROC.
If the DPP government does not thoroughly put an end to the ROC framework, there is no way out for Taiwan.
Second, the ROC is not the same as Taiwan. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has ruled Taiwan for half a century and the so-called Constitution of the ROC was designed to rule all of China. During the presidency of Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) several amendments were made to the Constitution that were intended to limit the jurisdiction of the ROC to Taiwan and Penghu. But the basic spirit of the Constitution as a whole, including the amendments, does not consider Taiwan a different country. It divides the ROC into a Taiwan area and a Mainland area. This means that the most fundamental law of our country, the Constitution of the ROC, does not see Taiwan as a country, but as an area.
According to this line of thinking, the ROC represents all of China and Taiwan is only a hotel that the ROC is temporarily staying in, with the ultimate goal of the unification of China. This is the KMT's legal system and it is the source of the abnormality of the constitutional government, education, foreign relations, national defense and other institutions. The chaos in Taiwan's democracy can be traced back to this, which is why we have to draft a new constitution for Taiwan.
Third, Taiwan has never been treated as a country. President Chen Shui-bian (
Instead, the name used is either the Republic of China -- a name that has become meaningless internationally and has been replaced by China -- or names like Chinese Taipei, Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen and Matzu, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, or terms like fishing entity, health entity or meteorological entity.
Does that sound like a country? Just what do we stand for?
A famous expert in international law once said that from the way the Taiwanese government behaves, one would think Taiwan is not a country.
In other words, after living in the ROC framework for seven years, Chen has not solved the problems of the internal political chaos and the national identity crisis and neither has he changed the reality of Taiwan not being a country. Because our government internationally has never carried out any necessary legal promotion of Taiwan, or made a point of bringing up Taiwan's national rights, internationally there is no country with the name Taiwan.
Fourth, only if the ROC is brought to an end will there be a normal Taiwan. Although Lee pushed for democratic reform, he was a president within the ROC framework for 12 years. Chen has continued to be such a president for seven years. If DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) is also going to be president within this framework, and is unable to say that the most important task of the president of the ROC is to one day do away with the ROC, Taiwan's national and international political crisis will never come to an end.
The will and political decisiveness of a country's leaders will absolutely have an influence on the fate of the country. Similarly, the emergence of the collective will of the general public and the implementation of democracy can also decide the fate of a country.
If the Taiwanese do not make their voices heard, if they do not exercise their right to hold a referendum on joining the UN using the name Taiwan, and if the country doesn't change its name from the ROC to Taiwan the "status quo" will continue, until the day that both Taiwan and the ROC are destroyed by China.
Michelle Wang is the deputy secretary-general of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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