On Sept. 21, Zogby International released the results of a US telephone poll commissioned by the Government Information Office (GIO). According to the poll, 55 percent of Americans believe "the UN should offer Taiwan membership." If Taiwan passes a referendum supporting a UN bid, 70 percent of the respondents said that "the US should not oppose the island nation's petition to join." This is exciting.
Although the outcome of this kind of referendum is not legally binding, public opinion at home will put pressure on Washington to improve its treatment of Taiwan.
This is reminiscent of when former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) -- after being humiliated during a stopover in Hawaii -- won strong US public support that later forced then US president Bill Clinton to approve Lee's visit to Cornell University.
We should pay greater attention to whether the referendums proposed by the pan-blue and pan-green camps can be passed and whether they should be combined.
Extremists in the pan-blue camp oppose combining the referendums because they believe the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to "one China." They also think that since China already has a UN seat, Taiwan should not apply for membership because that would create "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan." Thus, they hope the referendums will fail.
Similarly, pan-green fundamentalists oppose combining the referendums because they believe the two camps are different, as are their referendum proposals.
Referendum supporters think that if the total number of voters for the two referendums exceeds half of the total number of eligible voters, they can proclaim to the international community that the referendum supporting Taiwan's UN bid is passed.
Indeed, if neither referendum is passed on its own, this will be the only way to promote the result, but it would undoubtedly be very difficult to convince the world to accept such a claim.
The problem with such creative ballot counting is that the international community has always been controlled by power politics.
The rules of the game have been dominated by the leading powers and creativity has always been their privilege. It seems very difficult for a tiny country like Taiwan, which is often blocked even when playing by the rules, to have everyone accept its innovations.
Furthermore, China's international propaganda machine is much stronger than Taiwan's. Once Beijing points out that both referendums have failed, it will be difficult to make the world listen to Taiwan and not China.
If turnout for the presidential election is 75 percent, and if one third of pro-blue supporters do not vote in the referendums, it is question-able whether the number of people voting in the referendums will exceed half of the total number of eligible voters.
The pan-green camp has attacked the blue camp's proposal of "rejoining" the UN, rather than "joining," as fundamentally unfeasible.
If Taiwan wants to add the voters from one referendum to the voters in the other referendum it will be hard put to justify this to the international community.
The harm caused by two failed referendums would be enormous and the benefits if they pass are shown in the poll. Hence, the ruling and opposition parties must take immediate steps to remedy the situation for the sake of the country.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers