For a long time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) described the number of Taiwanese separatists as "a handful." If there were really only "a handful" of individuals who insist on Taiwanese independence, then the referendum to enter the UN would undoubtedly end in defeat.
Strangely, the KMT is nervous about a referendum that they claim is destined to fail, even going so far as to oppose the central government by insisting on two-step voting.
The US is exhibiting another kind of contradiction: For the last 20 years, it has frequently reassured China that it does not support Taiwanese independence. If it does not support independence, then it is none of the US's business, and Washington should be happily unconcerned.
Why has the US been anxious about Taiwan's referendum to the point of asking American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young and AIT Chairman Raymond Burghard to convince Taiwan that the referendum is unnecessary, unbeneficial and would only cause trouble?
China and the US are anxious about the referendum to join the UN under the name Taiwan, but not at all concerned about the KMT's referendum to return to the UN. If Taiwan joins the UN, it is to peacefully exist on a mutually beneficial basis with China; yet if the Republic of China returned to the UN, then it must expel the People's Republic of China in order to do so.
The second option is clearly more troublesome, so why are China and the US so worried about the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum?
It's obvious that although the KMT calls it "a handful," it knows full well that the majority of Taiwanese support independence. This is a significant constraint on the KMT's efforts at a comeback and a major problem for the CCP's goal of peaceful unification.
Chinese political analyst Ruan Ming (阮銘) has said it is China that worries most about military action. Though Beijing claims it will invade if Taiwan declares independence, we are reminded of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) question to China's war hawks in 1996: "Fight? Fight? What if the economy breaks down, then what will we do?"
The US has the same problem. Though they claim not to support Taiwanese independence, they cannot avoid intervention if China invades Taiwan. This is why the US does not want Taiwan to "make trouble." What Washington really means is that Taiwan should not make trouble for the US.
Should we try to lighten the burden on the US and China by leaving Taiwan in a situation where it is continually oppressed or should we manage our own plight, leaving the US and China to deal with their own problems?
The answer is the latter, and the referendum is a great solution: It expresses the desire of the Taiwanese for formal independence, but does not immediately sink China and the US into an extremely problematic situation.
This is because even if the referendum were passed, Taiwan would not be given immediate UN membership and the national title would not immediately become "Republic of Taiwan." China would not have to worry about staging an immediate invasion and the US would not be embroiled in conflict right away.
They would, though, have to ask: "What's next?"
And when they start asking us for the next move, it indicates that we are no longer in the passive position of being oppressed. Hence the referendum also functions as a bargaining chip, allowing us to secure our ground and advance as we choose.
With this bargaining chip, we have a useful tool not only in resisting or negotiating with China, but also in responding to the neglect with which the international community has treated us, as evidenced by the claim that Taiwan is not a country, as made by Dennis Wilder, the Senior Director of Asian Affairs at the US National Security Council.
We can tell the world that Taiwan is not an international orphan and not a province of autocratic China.
Passing the referendum will set a restraint upon Taiwan's next president. If DPP candidate Frank Hsieh (
All things considered, the referendum to join the UN has many benefits and no detriments. We must break through the two-step voting trap set by the KMT and actively cast affirmative ballots.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor at the Graduate School of Taiwan Culture at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Angela Hong
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