Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: A rose by any other name ...

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) passed its "normal country" resolution on Thursday which is to become the party's platform and will likely be the cornerstone of DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's campaign.

The final version of the "normal country" resolution is the product of a number of compromises between the different factions of the DPP.

The initial draft introduced on Aug. 1 was more controversial in that it called for changing the country's name from the current "Republic of China" (ROC) to "Taiwan," while the final version instead calls for an unspecified new name to be adopted within an unspecified timeframe.

This coincides as well with the party's effort to hold a referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan."

The highly sensitive nature of the whole undertaking lies in the possibility, as some have accused, that the effort to hold a referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan" could be interpreted as a move toward declaring de jure independence.

Some also claim it contradicts the "four noes" declared by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) when he took office. One such "no" was a commitment to not officially change the name of the country and another was not to declare independence.

Such accusations miss the point of the intended proposal entirely.

First of all, regardless of what name is used, Taiwan or the ROC or Formosa -- whatever you want to call it -- this place is already independent.

Second, there is no shortage of confusion on the international scene as to what the difference is between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China.

The names may be similar, but they are as different as democracy and dictatorship.

The proposal is about clarifying names to the international community, preventing confusion and facilitating meaningful international cooperation in organizations by creating a normal country.

The word most frequently used to describe this place is "Taiwan."

Since that's the case, when joining an international body it only makes sense to use this name to avoid contributing to the illusion propagated by China that Taiwan belongs to Beijing.

Within the limits of international isolation, Chen and the DPP must expand the country's de facto independence to meet the nation's needs.

And a question emerges -- Where is the line between de facto and de jure independence?

Traditional deep green supporters may have hoped for less ambiguity in the "normal country" resolution and the referendum. Some eager to condemn Chen and the DPP may be seeing clarity in the proposals that isn't there.

It's a fine line indeed -- but one that must be walked to ensure that the voice of the Taiwanese people is heard.
This story has been viewed 1476 times.