Despite the fact that it needs final approval by the party congress, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Central Executive Committee passed the party's "normal country" draft resolution last Thursday.
In addition to recognizing the so-called "five abnormalities" of the nation's international relations, constitutional system, national identity, social justice and party competition, the draft document summed up the key policies the party has been pursuing since it came to power in 2000 -- changing the name of the nation and state-owned entreprises, constitutional re-engineering, joining the UN and the implementation of transitional justice.
The passage of the resolution coincided with the latest statements made by Dennis Wilder, senior director for Asian affairs at the US National Security Council, that the Republic of China (ROC) is an "undecided issue" and therefore neither Taiwan nor the ROC can be considered a country.
The main goal of the resolution is to normalize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. It advocates the deepening of Taiwan's democratic values and of a Taiwanese "consciousness" and suggests the government hold a national referendum at an "appropriate time" to demonstrate public opinion and the nation's sovereignty.
Before the 2000 presidential election, the DPP passed the "Resolution regarding Taiwan's future" with the aim of eliminating international concerns that the party and its candidate, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), were Taiwanese independence fundamentalists. The party's charter said it advocated the establishment of a Republic of Taiwan -- which could be considered by the international community as a move toward de-jure independence.
The campaign strategy of the Chen camp was to introduce a "new middle way" to cross-strait relations. The DPP had to work with Chen to elaborate a moderate and realistic approach to win over more moderate voters while at the same time remaining true to the party's existing values, such as recognizing Taiwan as an independent and sovereign country, that the status of the nation must be decided only by Taiwanese through a referendum and, most importantly, the rejection of the "one China" principle and the "one country, two systems" model.
Another key characteristic of the resolution was to accept that the name of the country is the "Republic of China" under its Constitution, while emphasizing the fact that Taiwan's jurisdiction extends only to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and its affiliated islands and territorial waters.
There is no doubt that Chen played a pivotal role in the passage of the 1999 resolution, leading the DPP to become a political force with moderate voters.
Eight years later, the DPP is looking to pass the "normal country" resolution to pave the way for its presidential nominee, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), to win next year's presidential election. Most importantly, to avoid any misinterpretations, Hsieh's camp has successfully incorporated a good deal of pragmatism in the drafting process.
Safeguarding the nation's democracy and independent sovereignty, consolidating Taiwanese identity, ensuring the people's democratic right to hold a referendum to decide their future and rejecting China's political absorption of Taiwan are values shared by both resolutions. It shows both continuity and a transformation of the DPP's values.
But what differentiates the two resolutions is the fact that the former says the ROC is the name of the nation while the latter clearly suggests that it cannot be effectively used in the international community. Therefore, it advocates the use of "Taiwan" when applying for membership of major international organizations. It also says that in order to connect Taiwan with the rest of the world the nation should adopt the Gregorian calendar and stop using the ROC, or minkuo, calendar.
This decision is timely and correct because it represents mainstream public opinion and reflects political reality when it comes to Taiwan's international presence. The name ROC is often misleading and confuses the international community. The stress on the use of the name "Taiwan" will constantly remind the rest of the world that Taiwan and the People's Republic of China are two different political entities.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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