On Aug. 23, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) announced the party’s new national security strategy as part of her campaign for January’s presidential election. The document takes a refreshing look at the situation, establishes core principles as a point of departure and lays out a set of clear policy positions.
The strength of the policy paper is that it positions Taiwan as a member of the international community that “has the duty to actively participate in and contribute to international cooperative efforts, and do its best to fulfill its responsibilities as a member of the international community.”
In the paper, the DPP advocates a “balanced global strategy” in which Taiwan reinforces its strategic partnership with the US and strengthens cooperation with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Relations with China are dealt with extensively: Tsai advocates “multi-layered and multifaceted exchanges” between Taiwan and China, which would result in a framework for “cross-strait peace and interaction,” thereby establishing a “stable and constructive bilateral relationship.”
This approach presents a much better prospect for Taiwan’s future than the worn-out approach of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, which bases itself on the archaic “Republic of China” Constitution that originated in 1947 Nanjing and has very little to do with present-day Taiwan. It would be akin to applying Britain’s unwritten constitution to the US because at one point in time the English king ruled over the 13 American colonies.
The other misnomer in the policies of the Ma administration is the so-called “1992 consensus,” a vague and confused definition of “one China” whereby the two sides are supposed to have different interpretations.
Tsai said that it would be much better if the Taiwanese arrived at a “Taiwan consensus” based on a common Taiwanese identity and shared values such as an adherence to the universal principles of justice and democracy, balanced external relations and human rights, because this would provide a more solid base for future dialogue with China.
The Taiwanese have a choice: Are they going to find their Taiwanese roots as a seafaring nation and become an integral part of the global community of nations, or will they continue to follow the anachronistic Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) line and thereby ensure their future is dependent on the goodwill of authoritarian China? The January elections will reveal all.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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