Now both sides of the pan-blue pan-green political spectrum support including a referendum in the next presidential election. In expressing disapproval of the referendum effort, the US may now have helped ignite stronger disapproval from China. It is clear that some means of preventing a serious problem in the Taiwan Strait is needed, or -- at the very least -- means of minimizing any harm to US interests.
Several issues have developed since Taiwan applied for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." The US very early on openly stated that it opposed this effort, and needless to say, China did as well. Taiwan insists it must continue pressing for the referendum as both political parties agree that the people of Taiwan support it -- and elections are not far off.
There has been some disapproval of the US' actions against Taiwan in the Taiwanese media, harkening back to other events that were not perceived as friendly. One event is President Chen Shui-bian's (
On that day I met Lee on the airliner and he was dressed as one would be in a plane, not in pajamas as some say. That talk with him was the best meeting I had with him over several years. He was strong in his talk, but not angry, and he had a lot to say to me to go and tell Washington. There are books that carry on about his trip to Cornell University, often with similar inaccurate representations.
But for Taiwan, things will always be different. To demonstrate this, my favorite example of changes in Taiwan is the expression in the first US-China Communique.
The text reads: "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China."
It originally said "all the people" agree that Taiwan is a part of China. It was changed by the US State Department to use the word "Chinese." We see now that a growing number of people in Taiwan do not see themselves as "Chinese" in that sense. They are Taiwanese, and that is why, way back in 1972, the word was changed.
In terms of continuing policies, China clearly continues its policy in the same way it always has: Taiwan is a part of China and that's it. Can the US continue its fundamental policies on cross-strait issues? Taiwan inevitably cannot. The US has a dialogue with China, but what is needed is a dialogue between the US and Taiwan that would keep problems from getting out of control.
Referendums are common in democracies, and having not had one in Taiwan for so long and then being told not to is not easy. Taiwanese know they have that right and political leaders are not likely to give it up. Perhaps the leaders could convince the people that the referendum could be put off for the time being if the country -- and the people's livelihoods -- could be lifted now.
One thing that might contribute to that is a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). There has been some talk that the US ought to offer an FTA to Taiwan for a variety of reasons, the main one being that it would be good for both the US and Taiwan. Perhaps there is some possibility in that.
Whatever can be decided between the US and Taiwan in that regard would not only contribute to Taiwan's economic or security matters at home, but would also strengthen its democratic system. It would also likely be helpful in international matters -- and for strengthening the US' position in East Asia.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS