So there’s this senior official who is having an affair. He goes to a hotel where he gets up to things he would prefer no one else found out about. There, he is caught with his pants down, so to speak, and he scrambles around for a team of defense lawyers. He finds a team of three. Lawyer One tries to play the whole thing down, saying the official’s predecessor had got up to the same thing. Lawyer Two gets all sanctimonious about the fact that this was a secret rendezvous, demanding the head of the Judas who leaked the story. Lawyer Three opts for diversionary tactics, saying they got the lady’s name wrong, they used her husband’s surname — that’s not very polite, is it?
It’s a great story, and one which illustrates remarkably well the government’s response to the leaked WHO memo requiring that Taiwan be referred to as “Taiwan, province of China.” The whole “affair” adds an interesting spin to the centenary of the Republic of China (ROC).
Only Minister of Foreign Affairs Timothy Yang (楊進添), knowing that he could not deny the existence of the memo and trying to contain the fallout, was sufficiently quick off the mark to say that the memo was of a “confidential” nature, not for the eyes of unauthorized personnel. The WHO is currently investigating how the memo was leaked.
The government was aware of the existence of the memo, as was China, of course, as it was behind the whole thing in the first place.
Therefore, it was no secret to either the government here or in Beijing. In fact, they made it confidential in order to keep it from the very people who should have been told about it — the Taiwanese.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) may well clench his fists and gnash his teeth, looking for all the world like he is “protesting,” but the question is, what exactly is it that he is protesting? At no point did he assert that Taiwan was not a province of China, or say that to claim it was did not comply with the facts. All he said was that this kind of behavior was unreasonable and unfair to the ROC, and that it was “inconsistent.”
Given that Ma accepts the “one China” principle, how can it possibly be unreasonable or unfair of the WHO to list Taiwan as a province of China? If he himself denies the state its dignity, how can he expect other people not to do the same thing?
The government does not dare point out the WHO’s error by emphasizing that Taiwan is not, in fact, a province of China. That the WHO maintains this, and has done so on several occasions, can really only have two explanations. The first is that China has made unilateral demands that the organization does so. The second is that the Ma administration has negotiated some form of secret agreement with China.
If Ma wants to prove his loyalty to Taiwan he should declare that he rejects the “one China” principle and point out that the term “Taiwan, province of China” is both erroneous and unacceptable. If he wants to demonstrate his loyalty to “100 years of the ROC,” he needs to release the records of all discussions, understandings and agreements struck by former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairmen Lien Chan (連戰) and Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), as well as all the other envoys he has sent over to China, for public scrutiny.
There are no international treaties that hand sovereignty of Taiwan to China. That is an incontrovertible fact. Anyone two-faced enough to give the right sound bites when electioneering while selling out the country doing secret deals does not deserve the trust of the electorate.
James Wang is a commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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