What about Taiwan?
In a recent article, Dennis Hickey claimed that: “On Oct. 10, the world will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty and led to the establishment of the Republic of China (ROC)” and “that Taipei is gearing up to commemorate the uprising with a series of major events” on Monday (“ROC is alive and well in Taiwan,” March 21, page 8).
At this stage of Taiwan’s democratic development, only the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People First Party, the New Party and the US should celebrate the misnomer that is the ROC government.
In the PRC, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses the ROC to bolster the nationalism necessary for its continued one-party rule. At the same time, in order to reverse the process of Taiwanization, former dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) “communist bandits” have cultivated a symbiotic relationship with a pan-blue camp that shows more concern for the well-being of Chinese official Zhang Ming-qing (張銘清) than Taiwanese.
In addition, the US supports the ROC government rather than the human rights of 23 million Taiwanese, because unlike the Republic of Taiwan envisioned in the 1991 Democratic Progressive Party charter, the ROC endures Chinese and US pressures and the limitations of international capitalism.
Thus, although the US, EU and Japan may acknowledge that “the ROC provides China, East Asia and elsewhere with a model for political reform,” as of this year, the PRC is also the world’s second-largest economy.
Hickey asserts that the ROC exists because “sovereignty resides in the state” that “exercises predominant authority within its borders, possesses a relatively stable population that owes its allegiance to the ROC government in Taipei, maintains formal diplomatic relations with roughly two dozen countries and strong ‘unofficial’ links with many others.”
In anticipation of the presidential election next year, voters in Taiwan should ask themselves if the ROC deserves loyalty or revolution. This government habitually denigrates its sovereignty in the international community.
For example, in its mostly failed bids to join international organizations, Taipei attempts to assure Beijing that the ROC is less than sovereign. Thus, the ROC becomes, occasionally, “Taiwan, Republic of China” or “Republic of China (Taiwan).”
Hickey doesn’t address the cowardice of the ROC state, but instead points out that the lack of official diplomatic ties between Taiwan and the US places Taiwan in the illustrious company of North Korea, Cuba and Iran — other states that also exist.
However, whether the nation-state that is Taiwan, but identifies itself as the anachronistic ROC exists, is not the question. A democratic Taiwan and/or the ROC undoubtedly exist(s). The relevant questions are: Does an independent, sovereign Taiwan have the right to exist? If so, do 23 million Taiwanese have the right to affirm de jure self-determination?
Given the rise of the PRC, the recent destruction of Taiwan’s potential military ally, Japan, and lack of diplomatic support from the US, should Taiwan wait indefinitely for conditions conducive to Taiwanese independence, or create those conditions itself?
SOPHIA SOLIVIO
Northampton, Massachusetts
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
Yesterday, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), once the dominant political party in Taiwan and the historic bearer of Chinese republicanism, officially crowned Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) as its chairwoman. A former advocate for Taiwanese independence turned Beijing-leaning firebrand, Cheng represents the KMT’s latest metamorphosis — not toward modernity, moderation or vision, but toward denial, distortion and decline. In an interview with Deutsche Welle that has now gone viral, Cheng declared with an unsettling confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “not a dictator,” but rather a “democratically elected leader.” She went on to lecture the German journalist that Russia had been “democratized
RSS