Washington clarified that the status of Taiwan is undecided and thereby implied that Taiwan is not part of any nation -- including China. This pronouncement unleashed, under the glare of the global media, a tidal wave of Taiwanese soul searching.
Naysaying from foreign governments and political pundits with their disparate yet self-serving motives aside, the single factor Taiwanese should take to heart is how future generations of Taiwanese will judge the conduct of those from this generation.
Should Taiwan's wishy-washy approach persist to eventually land Taiwan in China's hands, Taiwanese 60 years down the road would certainly curse their grandparents for their pusillanimity. They wouldn't cut the current generation any slack on account of the unremitting threat from Beijing, because they themselves would be experiencing the misery stemming from Beijing's promise to mete out punishment on the current generation of Taiwanese who stood in defiance to it.
The oft-repeated caution that the survival of Taiwan's sovereignty depends on blessing from Beijing is a defeatist mindset at work.
Rather, Taiwanese should rest the nation's sovereignty on self-confidence and steel themselves to prosper without a friendly hand from Beijing for an indefinite period of time. Only by maintaining this kind of attitude would there be any chance that Beijing might turn around at some point. Besides, after surviving the last 60 years under the constant cloud of a hostile China, Taiwan isn't entirely uninitiated in handling such a situation.
Another myth countering Taiwan's formal sovereignty is Washington's attitude. The argument has been that Taiwan's survival depends on US military protection and that therefore Taiwan should heed Washington's objections. That actually amounts to no more than a lame excuse.
Should the US military protection of Taiwan be contingent on the strategic value of Taiwan, the basis would hardly change when Taiwan declares formal sovereignty. The belief that a likelier military conflict stemming from Taiwan's declaration of independence would make the US shy away from protecting Taiwan is tantamount to pronouncing that the value of the US aegis should be discounted.
Taiwan's democratization might complicate Washington's dealings with Beijing, but it couldn't possibly have a negative impact on fundamental Taiwan-US relations, which are grounded on the notion of democracy.
That might explain why, reacting to President Chen Shui-bian's (
In contrast to the latter's long-lasting nature, the former is transitory and pertinent mostly to Chen's ongoing squabbles with the Bush administration.
The fact remains that Taiwan's wading through Beijing-instigated international obstacles to continue democratizing could only deepen that enduring trust, one that is rooted in shared values. No wonder empathy over Taiwan's cause among parliamentary members in the EU, the US and Japan is showing signs of mushrooming and could reach a crescendo should the UN plebiscite succeed.
This leaves intact the belief that, regarding Taiwan's using democratization as the sole path to consolidate its sovereignty, Western governments would effect an about-face long before Beijing.
That possibility alone would justify why, in the uphill struggle to answer the call of Taiwan's future, Taiwanese shouldn't wait for a written invitation.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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