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 (
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.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS