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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS