The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has given up the idea of making Taiwan unique and attractive. As globalization forces governments to enter political unions or emphasize their attractiveness in order to increase their global influence, the KMT government has done neither. Instead, it prefers to diminish Taiwan’s global reach by saying it is part of China, with the “one country, two areas (一國)” formula proposed by former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) during his visit to Beijing last month.
This formulation comes as nation states can no longer provide the same assurances to their citizens as before, because numerous economic decisions are taken elsewhere by companies, world unions or other international actors. They operate above governments and for this reason, governments need to create or enter political unions, such as the EU, in which countries can obtain greater control.
Others try to utilize their uniqueness like Bavaria in Germany, Scotland in the UK and Catalonia in Spain, which circumvent the nation state and rely on their regional uniqueness and industrial background. Taiwan’s strategy of joining a larger Chinese family will on the contrary diminish its international influence and control over its own future.
It is getting increasingly impossible for the KMT to explain what the difference is between the ambitions of the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The KMT’s answer will be that the “one country” in the “one country, two areas” refers to the Republic of China (ROC). However, no one outside a tiny and fast diminishing minority in the world is able to understand that the KMT seriously suggests that the ROC rules all of China, Mongolia and Taiwan. Rather than creating an atmosphere of peace and jubilation in China and in the world community, such an agenda could be seen as a direct threat to China and peace in the Taiwan Strait.
A stronger influence in global organizations requires that Taiwan be positively present in the hearts and minds of the world community. Potential supporters can be found among politicians, non-governmental organizations and others, and they may be able to provide new or the extra momentum to international policy initiatives from Taiwan. To do this, there has to be clear and positive political agenda from Taiwan that can attract international attention. Taking over China is not one of them.
To put it mildly, the “one country, two areas” formula is a clumsy attempt to further accommodate China as the KMT has done over the past four years. The KMT’s policy of refraining from provocations has already reduced the pressure on the EU and the US to assist Taiwan in organizations where its influence may be felt, thus reducing Taiwan’s participation as a sovereign state.
As an example, the KMT government has touted its “observer status” at the World Health Assembly — a position that is subject to a Chinese veto. One would think this should have led to a greater participation by Taiwan at the WHO, but a reality check shows that its participation in the world health body as a whole has deteriorated. Indeed, Taiwan participates in far fewer important committees compared with the period under the Democratic Progressive Party government, with its focus on creating a strong Taiwanese identity.
By saying Taiwan is Chinese, it links itself to China in the eyes of international politicians and further reduces its chances of being a member of regional trade unions that will have a significant say in the future. The consequence is an even more isolated Taiwan that hurts Taiwanese participation as a sovereign state and its people. Instead of making Taiwan unique, the KMT keeps repeating a bad habit of being on the wrong side of history.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
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
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
RSS