Repeated warnings from the US and China about the holding of a referendum on UN entry under the name "Taiwan" have so far failed to dampen the enthusiasm of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for its plebiscite plan.
Brushing off the move as an election gambit -- as the opposition and international media have done -- is dangerously over-simplifying the issue.
The referendum is about increasing Taiwanese consciousness among the public, especially younger generations, and making a statement to the world that -- contrary to the view that China bludgeons the international community into accepting -- the majority of Taiwanese do not consider their homeland to be part of China.
This kind of activity is essential if Taiwanese are to continue defending the nation's fragile democracy from absorption by its authoritarian neighbor.
Of course, it is also about mobilizing the pan-green vote. But name one political party that doesn't pull out all the stops to win an election.
Everyone knows that the UN bid, whatever name is used, is doomed to fail, but fear of failure should not be allowed to extinguish hope.
Nevertheless, China is intensifying its rhetoric, with a simultaneous increase in military activity aimed at worrying Taipei, while the US has already made its opinion clear and will no doubt up the ante as the election approaches, using any means possible to scupper the plebiscite.
Nevertheless, it was surprising this week to hear Lu De (
For Chinese officials to talk about using a democratic apparatus to counter Taiwan demonstrates just how riled Beijing's bigwigs are.
Whether Lu had official permission to air his views is unclear, but his words are just part of the usual mixture of threats and coercion that emerge from Beijing whenever Taiwan is planning something it doesn't like.
Government officials here would no doubt welcome the advent of a plebiscite in China and use it as proof that Taiwan's democracy can have a positive effect on its cross-strait rival.
But would a referendum in China really serve any purpose?
The result would be a foregone conclusion, as it is doubtful that anyone would be brave enough to vote against the party line on Taiwan's sovereignty.
Of course there are radical members of China's armed forces who would be willing to attack Taiwan tomorrow, but whether their view would hold sway before next year's Olympics and whether politicians would be willing to jeopardize China's international coming out party remain doubtful.
China has a lot to lose by taking reckless action over what is in effect a pointless vote, but failure to be seen to "rein in" Taiwan would cause the Communist Party leadership to appear toothless and deal a blow to its authority.
Because, despite the massive investment the Chinese military has made in the modernization of its weapons in recent years, doubts remain as to whether it has the necessary equipment and skill to pull off what would be the most ambitious amphibious landing since D-Day. The consequences of failure would be unthinkable. Add to this China's disastrous record of interfering in Taiwan's past elections, and a referendum, however undemocratically performed, would present Beijing with a face-saving compromise and a novel kind of stick with which to continue beating Taiwan.
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