Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finally came up with a somewhat original perspective on cross-strait relations during his visit to Japan at the end of last month. On Nov. 22, during a meeting with the Japan-ROC Diet Members' Consultative Council, better known as the Nikakon (日華懇談會), Ma pledged that there would be neither unification negotiations with China nor moves toward independence during his term. Instead, he would attempt to maintain the "status quo."
Later, during an interview on Japanese TV, Ma said that Taiwan does not necessarily need a predetermined stance prior to opening negotiations with China and described his cross-strait policy as one of non-unification, non-independence and non-violence.
Then, in a meeting with American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt, Ma said that if elected, he would not discuss the unification versus independence issue and he would not unilaterally alter the cross-strait "status quo."
But Ma's stance on Taiwan's future is eventual unification. This would be cause for concern if he were to become president.
If China says that the "status quo" already is unification, then any move by Taiwan to seek international recognition of its sovereignty is a matter of dividing the "motherland" and pursuing independence.
Ma's proposal of re-joining the UN as the Republic of China (ROC) competes with the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the representation of China. It is either blatantly deceitful or extremely wishful thinking. If Ma were serious about entry into the mainstream international community, then our status must be that of an independent, sovereign nation.
To the PRC, this would be tantamount to dividing Chinese sovereignty. If Ma became president of the ROC, would he challenge international law and the political order?
If this does not go against his policy of eventual unification, would he dare claim that the ROC, like the PRC, is an independent sovereign state?
If Ma's eventual unification refers to the unification of the power to govern China, does that mean a unification in which China annexes Taiwan, Taiwan annexes China, or cooperating to create a new China? Should we hold a referendum to seek the opinion of Taiwanese?
In a speech at the London School of Economics last year, Ma said that Taiwan is already a mature democracy in which unification would require the consent of the public. How is this different from the Democratic Progressive Party's Resolution on Taiwan's Future, which stipulates that a change to the current state of sovereignty requires a referendum?
Ma's support of the KMT referendum to re-join the UN is a lie designed to dupe pan-blue supporters. He claims there is no need for a predetermined stance prior to opening negotiations with China, but China already has a predetermined stance that it is forcing Taiwan to accept.
The KMT charter calls for Taiwan and China to leave political conflict aside and pursue unification based on the "one country, two interpretations" stipulation of the so-called "1992 consensus," with the aim of progressing toward a peaceful cross-strait relationship and unification based on democracy, liberty and equal prosperity.
But does China allow Taiwan the space to express its interpretation of "one country" in the international community? Is there a concept of "one country, two sovereignties" in international law? If not, "one country, two interpretations" will fall into the trap China has set in the international community, giving the PRC the exclusive right to interpret the meaning of "one country."
The result would be tantamount to silent acknowledgment of the PRC's right to represent China. It would demonstrate an unwillingness to break through the "status quo," which allows Taiwan no opportunity to participate in the international community as a sovereign state.
We applaud Ma's courage in pledging non-unification to Japan and the US. However, if this is his new stance, then does it not violate the KMT charter?
If a proponent of eventual unification pledges to refrain from promoting it as president, when he is in a most advantageous position to actually do so, then who should be given the decision?
Is it not the right of Taiwanese to determine their own future through referendum while maintaining the country's current independent sovereignty?
Tseng Chien-yuan is an assistant professor at Chung Hua University's Department of Public Administration.
Translated by Angela Hong
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