IN THE MIDDLE of World War II, British prime minister Winston Churchill said: "You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing -- after they have exhausted all other options."
He was expressing his exasperation with US zigzagging and idiosyncrasies in the fight against Nazi Germany and Japan.
We are similarly exasperated with recent statements by US officials opposing a referendum to enter the UN under the name Taiwan.
On Dec. 6, Deputy Assistant US Secretary of State Thomas Christensen reiterated his opposition to the referendum, while a few days later, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Ray Burghardt made similar statements during a visit to Taipei.
These statements are undermining democracy in Taiwan and are playing into China's hands. As an organization of US citizens of Taiwanese descent we find this unacceptable.
The statements undermine democracy because they go against the fundamental principle of self-determination: People have the right to express their views on major issues that affect their future.
Taiwan has a very special history because after World War II it was occupied by the losing side of the Chinese Civil War. But after Taiwan's remarkable transition to democracy, it is now a free nation that wants to be a full and equal member in the international family of nations.
The US opposition to the referendum also goes against the grain of the basic US principles of democracy and human rights, which are enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are universal values that the people of Taiwan cherish as much as Americans.
The statements by Christensen and Burghardt are also antithetical to keeping a level playing field in Taiwan.
By singling out the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum and not saying anything about a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) referendum -- which also supports joining the UN -- Christensen and Burghardt are taking sides in an internal Taiwanese debate and are influencing the election campaign. No doubt their statements will be played up by the pan-blue press.
In opposing the referendum, the US officials are regrettably doing the bidding of the authoritarian leaders of China. Beijing long ago learned that the shortest way to Taipei is through Washington and is now manipulating the US into trying to "control" Taiwan.
In spite of US denials, it is letting itself be used to "co-manage" Taiwan.
Of course, China does not like the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-sponsored referendum, but this vote would not disturb peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. It should be clear to our friends in the State Department and the White House that China's military threats against Taiwan and its relentless campaign to isolate Taiwan internationally are the real sources of tension and instability.
The purpose of the DPP's referendum is threefold. It would let the international community know that Taiwanese have no intention of letting themselves be subdued by the authoritarian regime in Beijing, and that the Taiwanese want their country to be a full and equal member in the international community. It would also counter China's relentless pressure to isolate Taiwan.
Christensen and Burghardt also made statements to the effect that they want to stick to the faulty and outdated "one China" policy.
We would like to quote one of Burghardt's own statements: "One of the wonderful things about democracy is that when new leaders come in, the new leaders present a new opportunity."
We certainly hope that when a new leader comes into power in Washington, he or she will see fit to ditch the anachronistic "one China" policy and replace it with a pragmatic policy based on the reality that Taiwan is a free and democratic nation in its own right.
In the meantime, we of course hope that the administration of US President George W. Bush will be sensible and rational on the issue of the DPP's referendum, and not overreact. For the time being, it should remain quiet on the issue and let democracy in Taiwan take its course.
After everything is said and done, the US should follow Churchill's advice: Do the right thing and support Taiwan's membership in international organizations.
Chen Wen-yen is executive director of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese-American organization based in Washington.
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